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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 persona petition for resentencing on an enhancement he asserted 
2

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

§ 1171.1, 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. Counsel’s record review and 

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

consulting with Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel 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. This 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. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 230-232.) 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 premises of his argument on appeal, defendant contends in his 

supplemental brief that his conviction included a five-year habitual offender enhancement 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), for which he seeks resentencing, rather than for a 

section 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 contentions 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),” which, 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 are 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 premises for his argument. He 

is also mistaken as a matter of law because section 1171.1 by its terms does not 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.