Filed 2/1/22 P. v. Williams CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEVIN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B313588

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA 478196)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Renee F. Korn, Judge. Affirmed. 

____________________________

Helen Hoeffel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________
2

On June 27, 2019, defendant and appellant Kevin Williams 

pleaded no contest to one count of damaging prison or jail property 

worth more than $950 in violation of Penal Code1 section 4600, 

subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced Williams to three years 

of probation, one of the conditions of which was to participate 

in a mental health treatment program. Over the next two years, 

Williams struggled to comply with the terms of his probation, 

failing to report to his probation officer, to appear at his court dates, 

and to participate in mental health programs. In October 2020, the 

court found Williams in violation of probation. The court reinstated 

probation with an additional requirement that Williams complete 

the domestic violence program that he had previously been ordered 

to complete under the terms of his parole on a separate offense. 

Williams, who was often homeless and without a phone, continued 

to have difficulty reporting to probation and made no progress with 

the required mental health and domestic violence programs.

In 2020, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 1950 

(2019−2020 Reg. Sess.), which amended section 1203.1 to reduce

the maximum term of probation in felony cases to two years. The 

trial court concluded that the law applied retroactively to Williams’s 

case, and as a result, his probation would expire on June 27, 2021. 

The court sought to find a way to ensure that Williams obtained 

treatment for his mental health issues without sending him to jail, 

but ultimately concluded that this was impossible. After a hearing 

on June 3, 2021, the court found Williams in violation of his 

probation for failing to report to probation, to pay restitution, and 

to complete his domestic violence and mental health programs. 

Although the court recognized that Williams had made progress in 

1 Unless otherwise specified, subsequent statutory references 

are to the Penal Code. 
3

regularly obtaining medication for his mental health problems and 

had avoided committing any new crimes, the court found that there 

was insufficient time to allow Williams to make progress toward 

meeting his probation requirements. The court sentenced Williams 

to 334 days in jail, with 154 days of credit for time served, and with 

probation terminated upon the completion of his sentence.

Williams filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed 

counsel to represent him in the matter. After examining the 

record, counsel filed a Wende2 brief raising no issues on appeal and

requesting that we independently review the record. On November 

24, 2021, we sent a letter to Williams and to counsel. In the letter, 

we directed counsel to immediately send the record on this appeal 

and a copy of the Wende brief to Williams and inform him that 

he had 30 days to submit by letter or brief any ground of appeal, 

contention or argument he wished us to consider. We have received 

no communication from Williams.

We have reviewed the entire record on appeal, and we 

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding 

Williams in violation of his probation or sentencing him to jail. 

We are satisfied that Williams’s counsel has fully complied with 

her responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106, 123−124.)

2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
4

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

BENDIX, J.