Court Opinion

ID: 9948834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 00:02:40.048879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:04.543158
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/7/24 P. v. Williams CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                      B328763

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. BA212549)
           v.

 ANZYLON WILLIAMS,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.
     Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    ______________________
       Because this appeal is determined by well-settled legal
principles, we decide the matter by memorandum disposition.
(Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) In 2001, a jury convicted
defendant and appellant Anzylon Williams of (1) attempted
willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder and (2) conspiracy
to commit murder. The trial court sentenced defendant to
26 years to life in prison on the conspiracy count, and stayed
execution of sentence on the attempted murder count pursuant to
Penal Code1 section 654.
       In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under
former section 1170.95. We affirmed the resentencing court’s
denial of that petition, concluding former section 1170.95 did not
apply to convictions for attempted murder. (People v. Williams
(June 29, 2020, B300341) [nonpub. opn.].)
       The Supreme Court granted review and instructed us to
vacate our opinion and reconsider the case in light of then-
recently enacted amendments to former section 1170.95 and the
Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th
952. In 2022, we issued a new opinion concluding that under the
amendments to former section 1170.95, defendant was entitled to
a new determination by the resentencing court as to whether her
petition established prima facie eligibility for relief. (People v.
Williams (Apr. 19, 2022, B300341) [nonpub. opn.].)
       On remand, in accordance with an agreement between the
parties, the resentencing court vacated the attempted murder
conviction and resentenced defendant on the conspiracy count.
The resulting sentence was the same, 26 years to life.

      1 Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

                                 2
       In April 2023, defendant filed a new petition under former
section 1170.95, which the resentencing court summarily denied
without appointing counsel. Defendant appealed and we
appointed counsel who filed a brief identifying no arguable
issues. We invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which
she did.
       Because this is an appeal from a denial of postconviction
relief under former section 1170.95, we are not required to
conduct an independent review of the record, as we might be in a
direct appeal from a criminal conviction. (People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222 (Delgadillo); see People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) When a defendant files a supplemental
brief, however, we are “required to evaluate the specific
arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.”
(Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
       It is not clear what issues defendant seeks to raise in her
supplemental brief, which seems only to summarize the
proceedings below. Defendant notes her current sentence is
identical to the one she was serving before she filed her 2019
petition. This is to be expected given her original sentence was
based solely on the conspiracy count, with the sentence on the
attempted murder count stayed under section 654. Under that
circumstance, vacation of the attempted murder count had no
impact on the length of the sentence.
       Defendant notes our 2022 opinion provided instructions to
the resentencing court under former section 1170.95, whereas the
current resentencing statute is section 1172.6. Apart from
numbering, there is no difference between the version of former
section 1170.95 addressed in our 2022 opinion and section 1172.6.
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 223, fn. 3 [in 2022 the

                                3
Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 as section 1172.6
without substantive change].)

                          DISPOSITION
      The order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                         BENDIX, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             CHANEY, J.

                                4