Two Convicted in Case Where 62-year Woman Was Pistol-Whipped So She Would Tell Where Money and Marijuana Might Be
This is a press release from the Mendocino County District Attorney’s Office:
The final two of three would-be robbers who attempted a marijuana and money rip-off in Laytonville just before Thanksgiving of last year were sentenced Thursday to state prison.
Dwan Raysean Porter-Walker, age 21, of Oakland, was sentenced to 15 years, 10 months. Porter-Walker stands convicted by plea of attempted robbery in the first degree in concert with others, residential burglary of an occupied home, and having personally used a firearm in the commission of the attempted robbery and burglary.
Porter-Walker was identified as the gunman who pistol-whipped the then 62-year victim to get her to disclose where any money and marijuana might be found. Despite the onslaught against her, the victim fought back and was able to summons help from a nearby home which caused the robbery to be thwarted when the thieves gave failed chase to the neighbors and then fled the scene.
At the time of the Laytonville crimes, defendant Porter-Walker was on felony probation out of the Alameda County Superior Court for grand theft – person, a felony that had been reduced from an original robbery charge.
Co-defendant Johnny Lee, age 40, of Oakland, was sentenced to 15 months, 4 months in state prison. Walker stands convicted by plea of attempted robbery in the first degree in concert with others and residential burglary of an occupied home. He also admitted having been convicted of a prior Strike offense, as well as having suffered a prior violent felony conviction.
Walker was identified as the person who picked up and drove the other two to the victim’s home. He then served as the look-out and get-away driver. Walker has at least three prior robbery convictions – one in federal court and two in California state courts.
Because the crimes for which each defendant stands convicted are deemed violent crimes, sentencing credits each defendant may attempt to earn in state prison are limited to no more than 15% of their respective overall sentence.
Both defendants had earlier accepted the DA’s final settlement offer at the last possible moment by entering the guilty pleas and admissions on March 26 as outlined above. Jury selection was scheduled to begin that morning. After the prosecutor announced his witnesses were present and he was ready to begin the trial, each defendant experienced cold feet, choosing to avoid trial by pleading guilty to avoid additional convictions by jury that likely would have led to significantly more time in prison.
Thereafter, further experiencing separate cases of “buyer’s remorse,” both have spent the last three months claiming to want to withdraw their guilty pleas and go back to having a jury trial. New attorneys were appointed for each defendant to objectively evaluate and discuss with each the merits of a motion to withdraw. Each of the new attorneys announced Thursday morning that such a motion was not in the long-term best interests of his client. With that hurdle out of the way, the court proceeded to impose the state prison sentences as were previously agreed to by the parties in March.