People v. Williams CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081364 · 2023-06-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB1100344
Trial judge: Kyle S. Brodie
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:33Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Williams's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was the actual perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and People v. Delgadillo.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found Williams was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error, noting that Williams was the actual shooter and the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory, which are prerequisites for relief under section 1172.6.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues and requesting independent review by the court.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to notify the client of the right to file a supplemental brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Wende/Delgadillo framework for independent review when counsel finds no merit. The court explicitly addresses the appellant's supplemental brief and the specific statutory requirements for section 1172.6 relief, confirming the factual basis for the trial court's denial.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Cedric Williams's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, finding the record of conviction showed he was the actual shooter and the jury was never instructed on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issue brief, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record, considered Williams's supplemental brief, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Summary denial of section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage without an order to show cause, on the ground that Williams was the actual perpetrator and the jury was not instructed on natural and probable consequences “The court found Williams was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard of review; under People v. Lewis the denial of a 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage is reviewed de novo and the court may rely on the record of conviction but may not engage in factfinding. Here the jury's true finding that Williams personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury, combined with the absence of any natural and probable consequences instruction, establishes as a matter of law that he was convicted as the direct perpetrator on his own malice, which places him outside section 1172.6. Williams's supplemental brief did not dispute either point, and his implied-malice and gang-enhancement arguments do not bear on 1172.6 eligibility. The result is therefore supportable, though the opinion does not articulate the governing standard or cite Lewis, and it labels the personal-discharge-causing-GBI finding as section 12022.53, subdivision (b) rather than (d), a minor inconsistency.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required on appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, but the Court of Appeal may exercise its discretion to conduct such review and must consider any supplemental brief filed by the defendant
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for appellate counsel to file a brief raising no issues and for the court to independently review the record for arguable error
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consult the record of conviction, including jury instructions and verdicts, to determine ineligibility as a matter of law, but may not engage in factfinding or weighing of evidence; denial at that stage is reviewed de novo and prejudice is assessed under Watson

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible because the jury's personal-discharge finding and the absence of a natural and probable consequences instruction make Williams ineligible as a matter of law, and the court properly addressed his supplemental brief as Delgadillo requires. The opinion, however, states no standard of review, does not cite People v. Lewis, the controlling authority on prima facie review, and does not explain why the trial court's finding that Williams was the actual perpetrator was a permissible legal conclusion from the record rather than prohibited factfinding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 6/15/23 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, D081364

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB1100344)

CEDRIC DALE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Kyle S. Brodie, Judge. Affirmed. Cedric Dale Williams, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2012, a jury convicted Cedric Dale Williams of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211; count 1); sexual penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); count 2); and attempted murder (§§ 187 & 664; count 3). The jury also found Williams was armed with a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), personally 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Williams was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life for the use of the firearm plus 29 years and four months for the various offenses. In 2022, Williams filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. The court found the record demonstrated Williams was the actual perpetrator (the person who did the shooting) and the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of liability. The court found Williams was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Williams of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his brief later in this opinion. This appeal does not raise factual issues concerning the offenses for which Williams was convicted. Accordingly, we will omit a summary of the facts of those offenses. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks us to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We grant the request and have conducted an independent review of the record.

2 To assist the court in reviewing the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967)386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in summarily denying the petition for resentencing. In his supplemental brief, Williams does not deny he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder. Somewhat consistently with his defense at trial, Williams claimed he did not act with implied malice. His defense was self-defense at trial. He does not dispute the facts of the shooting and the injuries it caused. Nor, does Williams argue that the jury was not instructed on liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Williams does complain at length about the gang enhancement in this case. However, his discussion does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order denying his petition for resentencing. We have independently reviewed the record consistent with Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying Williams’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12