Filed 2/22/22 P. v. Williams CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIAND WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B310260

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 0PH06161)

ORDER MODIFYING 

OPINION

BY THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 18, 

2022, is modified as follows: 

On the caption page, delete case number 0PH6161 and 

replace it with 0PH06161.

There is no change in judgment.

RUBIN, P. J. BAKER, J. MOOR, J.
Filed 2/18/22 P. v. Williams CA2/5 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BRIAND WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B310260

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 0PH06161)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Robert M. Kawahara, Commissioner. Affirmed.

William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

On June 3, 2018, defendant was released on parole. On 

October 8, 2020, a petition was filed to revoke his parole, alleging

violation of multiple conditions of parole. Following a hearing

before a commissioner acting as temporary judge, parole was 

revoked and reinstated. Defendant appeals.

On July 6, 2021, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The 

brief included a declaration from counsel to defendant, explaining 

the brief that counsel was filing, and informing defendant of his 

right to file a supplemental brief. On December 30, 2021, 

defendant filed a supplemental brief, in which he argued that he 

had not stipulated to the commissioner. On January 26, 2022, 

defendant submitted an amended supplemental brief making 

similar arguments.1

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that 

defendant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities 

and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) 

Nor did defendant’s supplemental brief raise an arguable 

issue. Commissioners may be appointed to preside over parole 

revocation hearings. (Gov. Code, § 71622.5, subd. (c)(1)(C).) 

However, revoking parole and committing a defendant to jail for 

violation of parole are not subordinate judicial duties that may be 

performed by constitutionally by a commissioner in the absence 

of a stipulation by the parties. (People v. Berch (2018) 

29 Cal.App.5th 966, 969 [defendant had objected to the 

1 Defendant’s supplemental brief also renewed a previous 

request to replace his current appointed counsel with new 

appointed counsel, on the basis that counsel should have pursued 

the argument that the commissioner lacked authority. We again 

deny the motion to replace counsel.
3

commissioner before hearing].)2 Here, by participating in the 

hearing before the commissioner with no objection, defendant, 

who was represented by counsel at the hearing, impliedly 

stipulated to the commissioner acting as temporary judge. (In re 

Horton (1991) 54 Cal.3d 82, 86, 91-93 [commissioner may preside 

over capital murder trial when defense counsel knew judicial 

officer was a commissioner and did not object]. See In re Mark L. 

(1983) 34 Cal.3d 171, 178, 179, fn. 6 [“Under the ‘tantamount 

stipulation’ doctrine, the parties confer judicial power not because 

they thought in those terms; had they done so, the stipulation 

presumably would be express. Rather, an implied stipulation 

arises from the parties’ common intent that the subordinate 

officer hearing their case do things which, in fact, can only be 

done by a judge.”].)

DISPOSITION

The order revoking parole is affirmed.3

RUBIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, J. MOOR, J.

2 California Constitution, Art, 6, § 22, provides: “The 

Legislature may provide for the appointment by trial courts of 

record of officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate 

judicial duties.”

3 Defendant has a separate habeas petition pending under a 

different case number. (Williams v. Superior Court, No. 

B317822.) We express no opinion on the merits of this petition.