Filed 6/15/23 P. v. Williams CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CEDRIC DALE WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant. D081364

(Super. Ct. No. FSB1100344 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Kyle S. Brodie , Judge. Affirmed. Cedric Dale Williams, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2012, a jury convicted Cedric Dale Williams of robbery (Pen

. Code , 1 § 211; count 1); sexual penetration with a foreign object ( § 289, subd. (a)(1);

count 2); and attempted murder ( §§ 187 & 664; count 3). The jury also found Williams was armed with a firearm ( § 12022.5, subd. (a)), personally

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury ( § 12022.53, subd. (b)) , and that he infli cted great bodily injury ( § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Williams was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life for the use of the firearm plus 29 years and four months for the various offenses. In 2022, Williams filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. The court found the record demonstrated Williams was the actual perpetrator (the person who did the shooting) and the jury was not instructed
on the natural a nd probable consequences theory of liability. The court found Williams was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has fil ed a brief pursuant to People v

. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 ( Delgadillo ), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for r eversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and independently review the record
for error under People v

. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ). We notified Williams of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his brief later in this opinion. This appeal does not raise factual issues concerning the offenses for which Williams was convicted. Accordingly, we will omit a summary of the
facts of those offenses.
DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadill o and asks us to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We grant the request and have conducted an independent
review of the record.3

To assist the court in reviewing the record and in compliance with
Anders v

. California (1 967)386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in summarily denying the petition for resentencing. In his supplemental brief, Williams does not deny he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder. Somewhat consistently with his defense at trial, Williams claimed he did not act with implied malice. His
defense was self

- defense at trial. He does not dispute the fac ts of the shooting and the injuries it caused. Nor, does Williams argue that the jury was not instructed on liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Williams does complain at length about the gang enhancement in this
case. Howe ver, his discussion does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order denying his petition for resentencing. We have independently reviewed the record consistent with Wende and
Anders. We have not discovered any potentially merit orious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.4 DISPOSITION The order denying Williams ’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

KELETY, J.