Court Opinion

ID: 9948369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 21:03:45.095031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:32.650507
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/6/24 P. v. Williams CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098980

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF17-
                                                                                     0005254-01, 17F5254)
           v.

 ISAIAH MALIK WILLIAMS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Isaiah Malik Williams filed an opening brief that
sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) After independently examining the record, we find no arguable error that would
result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND1
       In the early evening of September 20, 2017, C.W. met defendant and codefendant
Devon Sutton-Wilson at a truck stop to purchase marijuana. During the transaction,
defendant pulled out a gun and demanded C.W.’s money. Sutton-Wilson hit C.W. in the
face, breaking his nose. After the scuffle, C.W.’s money (about $600) was missing from
his wallet, and defendant later threatened C.W. that if he “snitch[ed]” on him, “you’re
going to get bodied.”
       Later that same night, C.Y. and Joshua Ahlberg, who lived together in Redding,
went to a gas station to purchase snacks. There, they ran into defendant, whom they
knew, and codefendants Sutton-Wilson and Brooklyn Hill. Defendant wanted to hang
out, so C.Y. and Ahlberg invited all three defendants back to their house.
       At the house, everyone went to C.Y.’s bedroom. A short time later, Ahlberg left
and went to take a shower while C.Y. and the others went outside on the back patio.
Sutton-Wilson went back inside and defendant followed while C.Y. and Hill remained
outside. Defendant returned and told Hill that she needed to go argue with Sutton-Wilson
out front, which C.Y. found strange since no one had been arguing. Hill disappeared
inside and defendant handed C.Y. marijuana, asking if he wanted to smoke. C.Y.
declined and went back inside where he found Sutton-Wilson ransacking his room.
When C.Y. asked what was going on, defendant pulled out a gun and pointed it at C.Y.’s
face, telling him, “You know what this is.”
       Defendant ordered C.Y. to the ground and hit him three times on the back of his
head with the gun. Defendant used a belt and cable to tie C.Y.’s feet and hands. He then
kicked C.Y. in his ribs and asked where Ahlberg’s room was located. He ordered Sutton-
Wilson to look for Ahlberg and later C.Y. could hear Ahlberg screaming and being hit.

1 The factual summary is based on the preliminary hearing transcript, to which defendant
stipulated as the factual basis for his plea.

                                                2
Defendant pulled C.Y. to his feet and ordered him to Ahlberg’s bedroom where they
found Ahlberg bleeding and Sutton-Wilson ransacking his room.
       While holding the gun, defendant said, “You know who I am, so I have [to] get the
pillow,” which C.Y. understood to mean that defendant intended to shoot them with a
pillow over their heads. Defendant picked C.Y. up, and C.Y. reached for the gun, which
went off. As they fought over the gun, Sutton-Wilson and Ahlberg struggled nearby.
C.Y. was able to flee to the master bedroom and out the sliding glass door while Ahlberg
remained with defendant and Sutton-Wilson; Ahlberg was later found dead of a gunshot
wound to the chest and a pillow with a hole through it was found nearby.
       Money, jewelry, and gaming equipment were taken from the home. Hill and
Sutton-Wilson were subsequently pulled over driving a car in which Ahlberg’s duffel bag
was found with dried blood on it along with gaming equipment. A search of Hill’s
residence located clothing and shoes with what appeared to be dried blood on them, and
hidden in a hallway vent, officers found a firearm, ammunition, and C.Y.’s jewelry.
       In October 2017, defendant, Sutton-Wilson, and Hill were charged with the first
degree murder of Ahlberg (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1),2 attempted premeditated
murder of C.Y. (§§ 664, 187; count 2), residential robberies (§ 211; counts 3 & 4) and
burglaries (§ 459; counts 5 & 6) of Ahlberg and C.Y., and kidnapping for robbery of C.Y.
(§ 209, subd. (b); count 7). Defendant and Sutton-Wilson were charged with the second
degree robbery (§ 211; count 8) and assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd.
(b); count 9) of C.W., and defendant was charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a); count 11).
       Multiple firearm enhancements were alleged. For counts 1 through 9, it was
alleged that defendant was armed with (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and used a firearm

2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                            3
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and for counts 1 through 4 and 7 through 9, it was alleged that
defendant personally discharged a firearm during the commission of the offenses
(§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). For counts 1 through 4 and count 7, it was alleged that defendant
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)
       Several special circumstance allegations were also alleged, including that
defendant and his codefendants murdered Ahlberg during a robbery (§ 190.2, subd.
(a)(17)(A)) and a first degree burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(G)), while lying in wait
(§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and during a kidnapping (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(B)).3 For
defendant, one prior prison term enhancement was alleged under section 667.5,
subdivision (b).
       In March 2023, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1 (first degree murder of
Ahlberg), count 2 (attempted murder of C.Y.), and count 8 (second degree robbery of
C.W.), and admitted the section 12022.53, subdivision (c) discharge of a firearm
enhancement as to count 1 in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 45 years to life in
state prison for the murder conviction and firearm enhancement plus a consecutive upper
term of five years for the robbery conviction and dismissal of the remaining charges and
allegations with a Harvey4 waiver at sentencing.5 The parties also agreed to a stayed
upper term sentence of nine years for count 2 (§ 654).
       In May 2023, the trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated prison term and
the remaining counts, enhancements and special allegations were dismissed. The court

3 The information specifically alleges the kidnapping special circumstance, but
mistakenly references section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(G) (for burglary) rather than
subdivision (a)(17)(B) for kidnapping.
4 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

5 Two additional criminal matters were also dismissed under the plea agreement.

                                             4
imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation restitution fine,
which was suspended unless parole was revoked (§ 1202.45), and $10,578.93 in
restitution to the California Victim and Government Compensation Claims Board with
the amount of direct restitution reserved as to Ahlberg’s parents, C.Y., and C.W. The
court awarded defendant 2,057 actual days of presentence credit. Defendant timely
appealed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of
the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no
communication from defendant.
       Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                         /s/
                                                   Duarte, Acting P. J.

We concur:

     /s/
Renner, J.

     /s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                              5