The People v. Williams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. ECR10626
- Trial judge
- David J. Danielsen
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court denied Williams's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, determining that his 1995 robbery conviction and great bodily injury finding did not qualify for resentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126“The trial court denied the petition because Williams's 1995 conviction for robbery and the finding of great bodily injury in connection with that offense do not qualify for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1).” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial. The opinion states that the court's independent review of the record disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues, thereby validating the trial court's application of the statute to the facts. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Mandates independent review of the record by appellate counsel when no issues are presented, to ensure competent representation.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues when they believe an appeal is frivolous.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the standard Wende/Anders protocol for reviewing appeals where appointed counsel finds no merit. The court explicitly states it reviewed the record and found no reasonably arguable issues, which is the correct legal standard for affirming in such circumstances.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Steven Gregory Williams's April 2013 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126, finding that his 1995 robbery conviction with a great bodily injury enhancement is a serious/violent felony that does not qualify for relief under subdivision (e)(1). On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Williams filed a supplemental brief raising several issues, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent record review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the order.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126 on the ground that the commitment offense (robbery with great bodily injury) is a serious/violent felony rendering defendant ineligible under subdivision (e)(1)“The trial court denied the petition because Williams's 1995 conviction for robbery and the finding of great bodily injury in connection with that offense do not qualify for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1).” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1) limits eligibility to inmates serving an indeterminate three strikes term for a felony that is not a serious or violent felony. Robbery is a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(9), and any felony with a true great bodily injury finding under section 12022.7 is violent under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8), so Williams was categorically ineligible regardless of his physical condition or dangerousness, and the question of which judge heard the petition could not have changed the result. The court reached the right outcome, though under People v. Kelly it should have briefly explained why each of the contentions in the supplemental brief fails rather than merely listing them. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court, and the court must then independently examine the record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the appellate opinion should set forth the contentions personally raised by the defendant and briefly explain why they fail.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The affirmance is correct because robbery with a great bodily injury finding is a violent felony under section 667.5, subdivision (c)(8) and (c)(9), making Williams statutorily ineligible for Proposition 36 resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1). However, the opinion lists Williams's four pro se contentions and then simply declares no arguable issues without the brief explanation People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 requires, and it does not address whether Wende review applies to a postconviction resentencing appeal.
Opinion
Filed 8/28/13 P. v. Williams CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063881
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. ECR10626)
STEVEN GREGORY WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J.
Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 1995 a jury convicted Steven Gregory Williams of robbery of Ellen Martin (Pen. Code, § 211)1 and found he inflicted great bodily injury on her within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). It was found true that Williams had previously been 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. convicted of two prior serious felonies (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) that were also prior strike convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(9)). He was sentenced to a prison term of 35 years to life (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)).
In April 2013, Williams petitioned the trial court for resentencing under section 1170.126. The trial court denied the petition because Williams's 1995 conviction for robbery and the finding of great bodily injury in connection with that offense do not qualify for resentencing under section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(1).
Williams appeals. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Ellen Martin was seriously injured when Williams forcibly removed her purse from her person by breaking the purse straps and dragging her down a flight of steps.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.
We granted Williams permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, and he has responded. He contends there are reasonably arguable issues raised by the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 that should have been briefed by his appellate counsel. Those issues include: whether the appropriate trial court judge ruled on his petition (§ 1170.126, subd. (j); whether the trial court misapplied sections 667.5, subdivision (c)(8) and 667.5, subdivision (c)(9); whether his poor 2 physical condition should be considered as contrary to the purpose of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)); and whether he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety were his sentence reduced.
Our review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Williams has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12