People v. Williams CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Imperial County · No. JCF31693
- Trial judge
- Poli Flores, Jr.
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, McINTYRE
Analysis
The trial court convicted Williams of assault with a deadly weapon and mayhem, and imposed a 16-year sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Independent review of the record for error (Wende review)“We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The court applied the standard Wende/Anders review, which requires the appellate court to independently examine the record to determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues. The court found none, which is the correct procedural outcome when counsel identifies no arguable issues and the record contains no obvious errors. |
Admission of evidence regarding uncharged assault (identified by counsel as non-arguable)“Whether the trial court erred in permitting the People to inquire about an alleged uncharged assault by Williams against the victim's brother?” | abuse of discretion | not reached | agree with court Counsel identified this as a possible but not arguable issue. The appellate court reviewed the record and concurred that it did not rise to the level of a reasonably arguable issue for reversal, effectively upholding the trial court's evidentiary ruling. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the duty of appellate counsel to identify issues and the court's duty to independently review the record when no issues are identified.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues, even if none are found, and allows the court to review the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel appeals. It accurately states the standard of review and the outcome of the independent record review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionA jury convicted Williams of assault with a deadly weapon and mayhem, found a serious felony prior and a strike prior true, and the trial court imposed a combined 16-year prison term on the mayhem count while staying a four-year term on the assault count under section 654. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying one possible Anders issue (admission of inquiry into an uncharged assault on the victim's brother), Williams filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (independent Wende/Anders review of the entire record)“We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief, the defendant was offered and declined the chance to file his own brief, and the court independently reviewed the record. The opinion recites the facts, charges, and sentence, satisfying the Kelly description requirements. Nothing in the opinion suggests a defect in the procedure or an overlooked arguable issue, though the opinion is too brief to permit independent verification of substantive matters such as the arithmetic of the 16-year term. |
Trial court's decision permitting the prosecution to inquire about an alleged uncharged assault by Williams against the victim's brother (Anders issue flagged by counsel)“Whether the trial court erred in permitting the People to inquire about an alleged uncharged assault by Williams against the victim's brother?” | unclear | correct | unsure The court treated this as a possible but not arguable issue and did not analyze it; admission of such evidence would ordinarily be reviewed for abuse of discretion under Evidence Code sections 1101 and 352. The opinion provides no detail about the nature of the inquiry, the purpose for which it was offered (e.g., impeachment of Williams's testimony denying any dispute), or any limiting instruction, so the ruling cannot be evaluated from the opinion alone. There is no identifiable legal error in the appellate court's handling, but the record quoted is insufficient to confirm the trial court was correct. |
Sentence: combined 16-year term on count 2 (mayhem) with the count 1 term stayed under section 654“The court imposed a combined sentence of 16 years in prison on count 2. The court stayed a four-year term for count 1 pursuant to section 654.” | unclear | correct | unsure The appellate court implicitly approved the sentence through its Wende review. The section 654 stay on the assault count is consistent with both counts arising from a single stabbing. The opinion does not break down how the 16-year figure was reached from the mayhem triad, the strike doubling, and the five-year serious felony enhancement, so the arithmetic cannot be independently checked, but nothing on the face of the opinion indicates an unauthorized sentence. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal without merit may so advise the court but should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must then independently examine the record.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the Wende/Anders procedure, giving the defendant an opportunity to file his own brief, identifying the issue counsel flagged, and stating that the entire record was independently reviewed. It is minimal by design and offers no analysis of the flagged evidentiary issue or the sentence computation, but that is consistent with established Wende practice and no misreading of law appears.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
Filed 4/10/15 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 APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D066153
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF31693)
RICHARD ALVIN WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Richard Alvin Williams of one count of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of mayhem (§ 203). The jury 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. also found true a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and one strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).
The court imposed a combined sentence of 16 years in prison on count 2. The court stayed a four-year term for count 1 pursuant to section 654.
Williams filed a notice of appeal.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating she is unable to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel requests this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Williams the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
At about 8:00 p.m. on September 16, 2013 the victim, Kathryn Cobb, and her sister Britney were at the home of Williams's father Morgan Williams.2 At some point the victim went into the kitchen. There she encountered Williams, who rushed at her, stabbed her in the left ear and said: "What's up bitch?"
When the victim screamed, her sister and Morgan ran into the kitchen. Morgan got between Williams and the victim and took the knife away from Williams. The victim was taken to the hospital where she received seven stitches for her wound.
2 We will refer to Williams's father as Morgan for clarity. No disrespect is intended. 2 Morgan called the sheriff's office and met the responding deputy outside the house. Morgan told the deputy that his son had stabbed someone and that he had taken the knife from him. Morgan took the deputy into the house for further investigation.
Defense Williams testified in his own behalf. He testified that although he had met the victim previously, he did not know her and did not socialize with her.
Williams denied the stabbing and denied any type of fight took place. He denied his father took a knife from him.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, indicating she has not been able to identify any reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified one possible, but not arguable issue for our consideration:
Whether the trial court erred in permitting the People to inquire about an alleged uncharged assault by Williams against the victim's brother?
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not identified any reasonably arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12