Court Opinion

ID: 9408824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 20:05:12.355607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.081570
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/13/23 P. v. Williams CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B323918

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No. BA372156-01
         v.

CALVIN WILLIAMS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles Count, Curtis B. Rappe, Judge. Affirmed.

     Richard B. Lennon and Jennifer L. Peabody, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we
review this appeal from an order denying a petition for
resentencing. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
      On March 11, 2011, the People charged appellant by
information with 1) the attempted willful, deliberate and
premeditated murder of Michael Douver in violation of Penal
Code sections 187, subdivision (a) and 6641; and 2) shooting from
a motor vehicle in violation of section 12034, subdivision (c). It
was further alleged that a principal personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death
within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), (d),
and (e)(1) and the offenses were committed for the benefit of, at
the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang
with the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal
conduct by gang members in violation of section 186.22,
subdivision (b)(1)(C). Appellant was the sole defendant charged
in the information.
      On July 24, 2012, a jury found appellant guilty as charged
and found true the gang and firearm enhancements. The trial
court sentenced appellant to life plus 25 years to life for the
attempted murder and firearm enhancement and five years for
shooting from a motor vehicle. Ten-year sentences on the two
gang enhancements were stayed. We later stayed the five-year
sentence as well. (People v. Williams (June 5, 2004, B249425)
[non pub. opn.].)

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
       We describe the underlying facts of the offenses solely for
context and do not rely on them in any way. An off-duty police
officer saw the victim as he was shot from the driver’s side of a
blue pick-up truck on June 1, 2010. The victim later told police
there were three males in the truck and the driver produced a
handgun and fired approximately four shots at him. Thirty
minutes after the shooting, the suspect vehicle was located at
Charlotte Taylor’s residence. She told officers the blue truck
belonged to appellant, whom she had just seen at the truck with
two men, John Powell and a Hispanic man later identified as
Christian Chan. Chan later testified that appellant picked him
up in a blue truck and as they were driving down Western
Avenue, appellant took a gun out from the center console and
started shooting at the victim.
       On December 29, 2021, appellant filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 (now renumbered
section 1172.6 by Statutes 2022, chapter 58, section 10, effective
June 30, 2022.). The trial court appointed counsel and ordered
the People to file a response to the petition. The People
contended the jury was not instructed on either the natural and
probable consequences doctrine or any theory of aiding and
abetting. Their response included a copy of the jury instructions
from the trial court file. After considering the briefing of the
parties as well as court’s Exhibit 1, a compact disc with the trial
transcript and clerk’s record on appeal, the trial court found “as a
matter of law” that the jury did not return a verdict relying on
either the natural and probable consequences doctrine or the
felony murder rule. It denied the petition. Appellant filed a
timely notice of appeal.

                                 3
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On
May 22, 2023, counsel filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo. Counsel advised us they told appellant he may file
his own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel sent
appellant transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of
the brief.
       On May 23, 2023, this court sent appellant a notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
appellant he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental
brief or letter stating any ground for appeal he believes we should
consider. We also advised appellant that if he did not file a
supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
       Appellant filed a supplemental brief. He contends he is
eligible for relief because he was held to answer on an
information that “allowed” the prosecution to proceed on a theory
of murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
We disagree. While the information theoretically may have
allowed a prosecution under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, the record reflects appellant was actually
prosecuted and convicted as the shooter who attempted to
murder the victim.
                         DISCUSSION
       Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed Senate
Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) “to amend the felony
murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not
imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with
the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the
underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human
life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) In addition to

                                4
substantively amending sections 188 and 189, Senate Bill
No. 1437 added section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6), which
provides a procedure to retroactively seek relief for convicted
murderers who could not be convicted under the law as amended.
(People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 959.) Senate Bill No. 775
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) later clarified “that persons who were
convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of
felony murder and the natural and probable consequences
doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted
of murder under the same theories.” (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, §1.)
        An individual who personally killed the victim is not
entitled to resentencing relief. (People v. Delgadillo, supra,
14 Cal.5th at p. 233 [defendant “not entitled to any relief under
section 1172.6” because he “was the actual killer”]; People v.
Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1, 4 [actual killer refers to someone
who personally killed the victim].)
        Appellant was the sole defendant charged in the
information. The record of conviction reflects he was prosecuted
and convicted of attempted premediated and deliberate
attempted murder as the actual shooter. The jury was instructed
with CALCRIM No. 600 which sets out the elements of attempted
murder: at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing
another person and an intent to kill that person. Notably the
jury was not instructed on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, the felony murder rule, or any theory of
aiding and abetting or imputed malice.
        The trial court properly reviewed the record of conviction,
i.e., the jury instructions, to determine whether or not appellant
made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. (People v.
Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 972 [consideration of the record of

                                5
conviction allows the court to identify meritless petitions].) The
record refutes appellant’s contentions that he was prosecuted
under any theory of natural and probable consequences or aiding
and abetting. The absence of jury instructions on the natural and
probable consequences doctrine, or any principles of aiding and
abetting, demonstrates appellant’s ineligibility as a matter of
law. (People v. Daniel (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 666, 677.)
       We do not adopt appellant’s contention that the
information “allowed” the jury to convict him under the natural
and probable consequences doctrine. We presume the jury
understands and follows the court’s instructions. (People v.
Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 205.) Where nothing suggests
the jurors did not follow instructions, the presumption that the
jury did follow the court’s instructions is not overcome. (People v.
Johnson (2015) 61 Cal.4th 734, 770; Cortes, at p. 206.)
       We are not otherwise required to conduct an independent
review of the record in an appeal from an order denying a petition
for resentencing filed pursuant to section 1172.6 and we decline
to do so. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)

                                 6
                          DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                               7