1

Filed 3/11/24 P. v. Williams CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

STEVEN STEPHON WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant. E082699

(Super.Ct.No. FWV18001472)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson

Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.

Steven Stephon Williams, in pro. per.; and Laura Arnold, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Steven Stephon Williams appeals from the trial court’s

denial of his in propria person a petition for resentencing on an enhancement he asserted2

was imposed pursuant to Penal Code, 1 section 667.5, subdivision (b). ( S ee former

§ 117 1 .1 , recodified as § 1172. 75 [ invalidating certain enhancements imposed under

§ 667.5 , subd. (b)

, and providing procedure for recall and resentencing ]. ) The trial court

appointed counsel for defendant and subsequently denied the petition because, as counsel

acknowledged at the hearing on the petition, defendant “did not plead [guilty to] , nor did

the Court .

. . sentence him [for a] prior prison [term] under 667.5(b).”

Defendant appealed and was appointed counsel

. C ounsel’s record review and

legal research disclosed no arguable issue to advance on appeal, including after

consulti ng with Appellate Def enders, Inc. C ounsel filed a brief requesting that we

independently examine the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende )

and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ). Counsel did not suggest any

potential issues for our review. T his court advised defendant he could file his own

supplemental brief, and he did so.

In appeals from denial of postconviction relief, as here, the appellate court may

conduct independent Wende and Anders review in its discretion. ( People v. Delg adillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 , 226, 230

- 23 2 .) When the defendant “files a supplemental brief or

letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that

brief and to issue a written opinion .” ( Id. at p. 232.)

Changing the premise s of his argument on appeal, d efendant contends in his

supplemental b rief that his convict ion included a five

- year habitual offender enhancement

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code

.3

under section 66 7, subdivision (a)(1)

, for which he seeks resentencing, rather than for a

s ection 667.5 prison prior as he alleged in his petition . He also alters the foundation for

his claim for sentencing relief from section 1171.1 to 1172.1

.

Even assuming arguendo that these new claims are not forfeited, there is no merit

to defendant’s cont entions in his petition or on appeal

. The record plainly contradicts

them. The trial court did not impose any of the enhancements defendant claims it did.

Defendant admitted a prior strike under “P.C. 1170.12 (a)

- (d)

, ” whic h, as reflected

on his plea form , doubled to 12 years the base term of the home invasion robbery offense

to which he also pled guilty

. No enhancements under sections 667.5 , subdivision (b)

, or

667 , subdivision (a)(1)

, for which he now seeks relief were imposed; they a re absent from

his plea agreement, the court’s sentencing colloquy, and its minute order and abstract of

judgment. Defendant is simply factually mistaken in the premise s for his argument. He

is also mistaken as a matter of law because section 1171.1 by its terms does n ot apply to

enhancements imposed under section 1170.12 , nor have there been any changes to

section 1170 .12 since defendant’s sentencing that could arguably trigger section 1172.1

.

The latter’s recall and resentencing procedures, in any event, may only be initiated by the

court on its own motion or by specified authorities , not the defendant

. (§ 1172.1,

subd. (a)(1).)4 DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying defendant’s request for postconviction relief is

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON

J.

FIELDS

J.