Filed 2/17/23 P. v. Cresham CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM MARTIN CRESHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

B320204

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. MA075346

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick J. Hoynoski, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————
2

We review this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.

On February 5, 2019, the People filed a four-count 

information against appellant. Count 1 charged assault by 

means likely to produce great bodily injury, a violation of Penal 

Code1 section 245, subdivision (a)(4). Count 2 charged criminal 

threats, a violation of section 422. Counts 3 and 4 charged 

misdemeanor contempt of court, violations of section 166, 

subdivision (c)(1). As to Counts 1 and 2, the information alleged 

appellant was previously convicted of two serious and/or violent 

felonies and suffered two prison priors in violation of sections 447 

subdivisions (b) through (j) and 665.5. As to Count 2, the

information also alleged appellant suffered two prior serious 

felony convictions in violation of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). 

On May 3, 2019, a jury convicted appellant of all four counts and,

in a bifurcated bench trial, the court found appellant had 

sustained the prior convictions and prison priors as alleged.

At sentencing on December 19, 2019, the trial court struck 

the five-year prison priors alleged as to Count 1. The court 

imposed eight years in state prison on Count 1: the upper term of 

four years doubled pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1). It 

sentenced appellant to 25 years to life on Count 2. It added two 

5-year prison priors as to Count 2, for a total aggregate term of 

25 years to life plus 18 years. Appellant was also sentenced on 

Counts 3 and 4 to concurrent time.

On June 11, 2021, this court affirmed the convictions and 

sentence. (People v. Cresham (June 11, 2021, B303803) [nonpub. 

opn.].)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

The charges arose when appellant beat his girlfriend and 

threatened to kill her. At the time of the assault, appellant was 

also under a 10-year criminal protective order to stay away from 

the victim. (People v. Cresham, supra, B303803.)

On March 7, 2022, appellant filed a petition for recall of 

his sentence (specifically the upper term sentence of eight years 

on Count 1) based on Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.). 

He argued the facts justifying the upper term were not found by a 

jury, as required by the new law. Senate Bill No. 567 amends

sections 1170 and 1170.1 and provides that the court may impose 

a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are 

circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the 

imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term 

and the facts underlying those circumstances have been 

stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a 

reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by a judge in a court trial.

(§ 1170, subd. (b)(2).) However, Senate Bill No. 567 also provides

that the court may consider a defendant’s prior convictions in 

determining a sentence based on a certified record of conviction,

without submitting the prior convictions to a jury. (§ 1170, subd.

(b)(3).)

On April 21, 2022, the trial court denied the petition for 

recall of sentence, finding that the upper term previously 

imposed on Count 1 was based on prior convictions proven to the 

court beyond a reasonable doubt at the bifurcated court trial on 

May 3, 2019. On May 6, 2022, appellant filed a timely notice of 

appeal.
4

We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After 

examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no 

issues and asked this court to review the record independently, 

citing People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. On 

November 28, 2022, we advised appellant, pursuant to People v. 

Wende, that he had 30 days within which to personally submit 

any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant did 

not file a supplemental brief.

We acknowledge we are permitted to decline to 

independently review the record before us if all conditions 

required by People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 are met. 

In this appeal, we failed to advise appellant that his appeal 

would be dismissed as abandoned if he did not file a 

supplemental brief. This advisement is required by People v. 

Delgadillo. For that reason, we conduct an independent review 

pursuant to People v. Wende. (Delgadillo, at p. 222.)

We have examined the entire record before us and are 

satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his

responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

at p. 441.)
5

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

GRIMES, J.

VIRAMONTES, J.