1

Filed 11/30/22 P. v. Williams CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EZRA WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A162867

 (Humboldt County

 Super. Ct. No. CR1700653)

Defendant received a sentence of 51 years to life after being convicted 

of three counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; counts 1–3)

1 and 

admitting two prior serious felonies (former § 667, subd. (a)) and two prior 

strike convictions (former § 667, subds. (b)–(i)). To reach this sentence, the 

trial court dismissed defendant’s prior strikes as to counts 2 and 3 but 

imposed 10-year terms for his two prior serious felonies.

When defendant’s sentencing hearing was held in September of 2018, 

section 667, subdivision (a) required a five-year enhancement for each prior 

serious felony, and the trial court had no discretion to strike it. (Former 

§§ 667, subd. (a), 1385, subd. (a).) However, on January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 

No. 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) went into effect. This bill amended former 

1 Unless otherwise stated herein, all statutory citations are to the Penal 

Code.
2

sections 667 and 1385 by eliminating the restriction on a trial court’s ability

to strike a prior serious felony enhancement. (Sen. Bill No. 1393 (2017–2018 

Reg. Sess.).) Based on this change, defendant successfully argued on appeal 

that the amendatory statutes applied retroactively and required the court to 

remand his case to the trial court for reconsideration. On April 22, 2020, we 

affirmed defendant’s conviction but returned the matter to the trial court to 

exercise its new discretion to consider whether to strike any of defendant’s 

prior serious felonies.

2 (People v. Williams (Apr. 22, 2020, A155671) [nonpub. 

opn.].)

On remand from our prior opinion, the trial court reconsidered 

defendant’s sentence under the newly amended statutes but, ultimately,

declined to strike any of the prior serious felony enhancements. The trial 

court thus confirmed defendant’s sentence of 51 years to life.

Now before this court a second time, defendant contends the trial 

court’s refusal to strike any of the serious felony enhancements pursuant to 

the amendatory versions of sections 667 and 1385 was an abuse of discretion 

and a violation of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial. We 

disagree and affirm his sentence.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Between December 23, 2016, and January 20, 2017, defendant 

committed three armed robberies in the City of Eureka. In the first robbery, 

on December 23, 2016, defendant and an accomplice entered a bank wearing 

bandannas and carrying what appeared to be handguns. They ordered the 

people present to get down, not to press any alarms, and to hand over money. 

They escaped with about $11,000 from a teller as well as money from a 

2 We grant defendant’s request for judicial notice of the record in his 

prior appeal, No. A155671.
3

customer who was depositing cash. In the second robbery, on January 12, 

2017, defendant and an accomplice robbed a sandwich shop. The men were 

again wearing bandannas and carrying what appeared to be handguns. 

Upon entering the store, they ordered an employee to hand over the money in 

the register, which totaled about $700. Finally, on January 20, 2017, 

defendant and an accomplice entered another bank wearing ski masks and 

carrying (again) what appeared to be handguns. They ordered the employees 

to lie down before taking and escaping with $5,300.

On April 30, 2018, a jury found defendant guilty of three counts of 

second degree robbery. Defendant then admitted two prior serious felony 

convictions (also robberies) for purposes of the enhancement under former

section 667, subdivision (a)(1), and two prior strike convictions for purposes of 

the enhancement under former section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i).

At sentencing on September 7, 2018, the trial court sentenced 

defendant to a total of 51 years to life, which included 10-year terms for the 

prior serious felonies. The court dismissed two prior strike convictions.

Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) became effective on 

January 1, 2019, while defendant’s appeal from his conviction was pending in 

this court. We affirmed defendant’s conviction but remanded to the trial 

court so it could determine in the first instance whether to strike the

enhancements imposed under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), pursuant to the 

discretion that was newly granted to judges by Senate Bill No. 1393.

On remand, the trial court accepted a letter of support from defendant’s 

former appellate counsel, and then heard argument from counsel and a 

statement from defendant. Afterward, the court declined to strike either of 

defendant’s prior serious felony enhancements and confirmed his previously

imposed sentence of 51 years to life.
4

On July 12, 2021, we granted defendant’s request to deem timely his 

notice of appeal filed June 18, 2020.

DISCUSSION

Under section 1385, subdivision (b)(1), as amended by Senate Bill No.

1393, a trial court is authorized to strike a defendant’s prior serious felony 

enhancement “in the furtherance of justice . . . .” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, § 2; 

see People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 702 [“Senate Bill 1393 was 

intended to bring a court’s discretion to strike a five-year serious felony 

enhancement in line with the court’s general discretion to strike other 

enhancements”].) The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court 

abused its discretion by declining to strike one or both of defendant’s prior 

serious felony enhancements.3 (People v. Shaw (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 582, 

586 [applying abuse of discretion standard to court’s denial of defendant’s 

post-Sen. Bill No. 1393 request to strike serious felony enhancement]; People 

v. Brooks (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 919, 926–927 [same].)

The relevant record reflects that at a contested hearing on December 8, 

2020, the trial court heard argument from both counsel and a lengthy 

statement by defendant. Among other things, the court heard that

defendant, while incarcerated the prior two years, engaged in intensive drug

treatment (including cognitive behavioral therapy and medication); received 

two certificates from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition; completed courses in 

options recovery services, motivational enhancement therapy, personal 

growth, personal success, resume and job training, and integrated fines; 

3 Defendant also expresses his sentencing challenge in constitutional 

terms, claiming a violation of his due process rights. However, he provides no 

legal authority for viewing his challenge through this lens. We therefore 

deem his constitutional argument forfeited. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 

Cal.4th 764, 793.)
5

participated in a prison arts collective course; and planned to enroll in a 

16-month paralegal course through the Blackstone Career Institute. The 

court also accepted a letter on defendant’s behalf from his former appellate 

counsel, who was impressed with defendant’s positive attitude and efforts at 

self-improvement in prison. Defendant’s former counsel noted in particular 

that he had become involved with the Compassion Prison Project, which 

would soon be publishing one of his stories.

At the completion of the hearing, the court nonetheless declined to 

strike one or both of defendant’s prior serious felony enhancements. The 

court identified several reasons for its decision. Most importantly, the court 

explained, defendant initially faced 105 years to life based on his crimes and 

criminal history. In the court’s words, defendant, although bright and 

articulate, had been a “one-person crime wave,” committing the present 

string of three robberies shortly after being released from a six-year prison 

term for two previous robberies. As such, defendant “fit[] squarely in what 

was intended by the legislature in the Three Strikes legislation.” Yet, the 

court had already gone out on a limb to dismiss defendant’s prior strike 

enhancements with the little discretion afforded under the prior law. “[B]ut 

for the fact of those nickel [i.e., serious felony] priors, I would not have struck 

the [section] 667(b) through (i) . . . . I would have left both of the strikes 

intact . . . .”

Additionally, the court referenced evidence that defendant had 

“glorified” his criminal lifestyle, sporting a T-shirt or sweatshirt with the 

phrase “ ‘Robbery 707’ ” across it, and had “taunt[ed]” the investigating 

detective by leaving a note for him in a hotel room before fleeing to Mexico.

Lastly, the court commended defendant for his prison behavior and 

encouraged him to keep it up. The court noted that even if the prior serious 
6

felonies remained, defendant’s parole date would be “about the same” 

notwithstanding any further changes in the law.

On this record, we find no abuse of discretion. The trial court 

considered the relevant factors, including defendant’s criminal history, his 

attitude toward crime and law enforcement (including his T-shirt or 

sweatshirt and taunting note), and his positive prison behavior, before 

reasonably concluding it would not be “in the furtherance of justice” to strike 

either of defendant’s serious felony enhancements. (People v. Shaw, supra, 

56 Cal.App.5th at p. 587 [no abuse of discretion where “the trial court 

evaluates all relevant circumstances to ensure that the punishment fits the 

offense and the offender”]; People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 640 

[“In light of [defendant’s] criminal history, the conclusion that [he] does not 

lie outside of the spirit of the Three Strikes law and that it would not be in 

furtherance of justice to strike the five-year enhancement for his prior serious 

felony is not ‘so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree 

with it’ ”].) Nothing more was required under California law.4 (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 4.410(a)(1)–(3), (7) [identifying multiple objectives 

relevant to a trial court’s sentencing decision, including protecting society, 

punishing the defendant, “[e]ncouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding 

life in the future and deterring him or her from future offenses,” and 

4 Defendant directs us to statutory amendments that went into effect 

after this hearing as a further basis for challenging the trial court’s ruling. 

However, defendant provides no legal authority for applying these recent 

enactments to his case for purposes of this appeal. He merely points to these 

enactments as an example of the ameliorative trend in our sentencing laws. 

(E.g., Sen. Bill No. 81 (Reg. Sess. 2021–2022) [amending § 1385 to require 

dismissal of an enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice and if no 

initiative statute prohibits such action; applicable to all sentences imposed on 

or after January 1, 2022].) We therefore decline to consider them here.
7

achieving uniformity in sentencing]; People v. Brooks, supra, 53 Cal.App.5th 

at p. 927 [no abuse of discretion where “[the court] selected a valid sentencing

objective as having more import than another valid sentencing objective that 

might have suggested a different disposition”].) Accordingly, the ruling 

stands.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Simons, J.

_________________________

Wiseman, J.*

A162867/People v. Ezra Williams

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate 

District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.