Filed 12/7/23 P. v. Williams CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WALTER WILLIAMS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B326471

(Super. Ct. No. VA071074)

(Los Angeles County)

Walter Williams appeals the trial court’s post-judgment 

order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code

section 1172.6.1 We affirm. 

In 2003, a jury convicted appellant of attempted murder 

(count one; §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly 

weapon (count two; § 245, subd. (b)) for shooting a restaurant 

employee in Norwalk. The jury found true allegations that 

Williams personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless 

otherwise noted.
2

injury. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c) & (d), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial 

court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison on count one. It 

stayed his sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654. 

Williams filed a petition for resentencing in March of 2022. 

(Former § 1170.95, now § 1172.6). The court appointed an 

attorney to represent him and held a hearing. It found Williams

ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted of attempted 

murder as the actual shooter of the victim, not as a participant 

found guilty under the now-invalid theory of natural and 

probable consequences. Williams appealed. We appointed 

counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues

in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 

(Delgadillo) and requested we independently review the record 

for error. We notified Williams of his right to submit any 

contentions or issues he wished us to consider. 

Williams filed a partially completed form petition for writ 

of habeas corpus that cited various cases, statutes, and bills as 

grounds for resentencing, including People v. Griffin (2022) 85 

Cal.App.5th 329, sections 1170, 1172.1, 1172.6, and Senate Bill 

620’s amendments to sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. He requests 

the court resentence him for assault with a deadly weapon rather 

than murder in what appears to be an argument based on section 

654.

2 Williams separately submitted a copy of a “Certificate of 

Release or Discharge From Active Duty” indicating he received 

an “Entry Level Separation” from the United States Navy based 

on “other physical/mental condition – personality disorder” in 

2 Williams states as follows on page 3 of the petition: “I 

was charged with attempted murder [and] assault with a [deadly] 

weapon. [¶] Only one charge appl[ies]. I should be resentence[d] 

for assault only. It was only one crime. Not two.”
3

May of 1984, along with a completed form petition for 

resentencing based on health conditions due to military service 

under section 1170.91, subdivision (b).3 We elected to treat these

materials as supplemental briefing submitted in response to our 

Delgadillo notice. As such, we are “required to evaluate the 

specific arguments presented in that brief and . . . issue a written 

opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

The trial court correctly found that Williams is not eligible 

for resentencing under section 1172.6. The record confirms he 

was the sole participant in the charged crime. He shot a 

restaurant worker with a handgun as the victim was handing 

him a bag of food through a drive-thru window. (See People v. 

Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967 [section 1172.6 enacted “‘to 

ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person who is 

not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not 

a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with 

reckless indifference to human life’”].) Prosecutors did not obtain 

(or seek) Williams’ conviction for attempted murder under the 

natural and probable causes doctrine – a threshold requirement 

for resentencing under the statute. (See § 1172.6, subd. (a) [“A 

person convicted of . . . attempted murder under the natural and 

probable consequences doctrine . . . may file a petition with the 

court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s . . .

attempted murder . . . conviction vacated and to be resentenced 

on any remaining counts”].) 

Williams did not seek relief under sections 654, 1170, 

1172.1, or Senate Bill 620 in his original petition. These issues 

3 Williams also requests we appoint him new counsel. We 

deny the request.
4

are beyond the scope of this appeal. Even if we were to consider 

them, he articulates no grounds for relief.

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
5

Joseph R. Porras, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.