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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered 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 an 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 inflicted 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 and 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 filed 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 reversal 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 

Delgadillo 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 (1967)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 facts 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. However, 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 meritorious 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.