Court Opinion

ID: 9907161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 20:02:46.55237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:34.359695
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/5/23 P. v. Williams CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080567

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF2103142)

 TREVOR JEROME WILLIAMS,                                                 OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.

Affirmed.

         Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

         No response from Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
          Trevor Jerome Williams appeals from the judgment entered following his plea of

guilty to one felony count of failure to register a new address or transient location as a

sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.013; unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) We

appointed counsel to represent Williams on appeal, and counsel filed a brief under People

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,

raising no issues and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. We

affirm.

                                        BACKGROUND

          Williams is required to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender

Registration Act (§ 290 et seq.) as a result of his conviction in 2014 of conspiracy to
                              1
commit human trafficking.         (§§ 182, 236.1, subd. (c).) In 2018, Williams was convicted

of felony failure to reregister upon release from incarceration (§ 209.015) and was

sentenced to two years and eight months in prison.

          According to a report from Williams’s parole officer, on May 21, 2021, while

Williams was on parole for the 2018 registration offense, he informed the parole officer

that he had moved out of his mother’s home and was transient. During that conversation,

the parole officer reminded Williams of his duty to register his change of address and

transient status under the registration statutes within five business days. The parole

          1 Section 290 requires individuals convicted of certain offenses to register as sex
offenders. Conspiracy to commit human trafficking under section 236.1, subdivision (c),
is one of the covered offenses. (§ 290, subd. (c)(1).)
                                                2
officer reminded Williams of that duty again on both June 9 and June 28, 2021. On July

6, 2021, Williams registered his location and transient status.

       On July 27, 2021, the People filed a complaint charging Williams with one count

of failure to register a new address or transient location (§ 290.013, subd. (a), count 1)

and one count of failure to register as a transient (§ 290.011, subd. (d), count 2). The

complaint also alleged that Williams had suffered a prior strike conviction—second

degree burglary committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§§ 459, 186.22, subd.

(b))—within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1) & 1170.12,

subd. (c)(1)).

       At the plea hearing on December 8, 2022, Williams pled guilty to count 1 and

admitted the prior strike conviction in exchange for a sentence of two years and eight

months in prison and the dismissal of count 2. Counsel stipulated that the parole officer’s

report provided a factual basis for the plea, and the trial court found that Williams had

knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his constitutional rights and entered his

guilty plea. The court sentenced Williams to two years and eight months, with 204 days

of presentence custody credits.

       Williams filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and checked the box

indicating “[t]his appeal challenges the validity of the plea or admission.” Checking that

box required him to complete the request for certificate of probable cause elsewhere on

the form. In his request for certificate of probable cause, Williams stated that the plea

lacked a factual basis and that his admission of guilt was neither voluntary nor intelligent

                                              3
because he was not advised of the direct or collateral consequences of the plea. Williams

also stated: “The allegations made by Kayla Johnson were fabricated. . . . I was not

made aware that the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office was planning on filing

additional felony charges involving the same individual who has made additional

fabricated allegations from with [sic] the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
                                            2
plans to use to bo[l]ster these charges.”

         On January 20, 2023, the trial court denied the request for certificate of probable

cause.

                                        DISCUSSION

         Counsel’s Wende brief identified three potential arguable issues: (1) whether

Williams’s plea was knowing and voluntary; (2) whether there was a factual basis for the

plea; and (3) whether the prosecutor breached the plea bargain. We advised Williams

that he had 30 days to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

         Section 1237.5 provides: “No appeal shall be taken by the defendant from a

judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . . except where both of

the following are met: [¶] (a) The defendant has filed with the trial court a written

statement, executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable constitutional,

         2 The reference to Kayla Johnson suggests that Williams may have been referring
to a different case, in which he pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor battery under
section 243, subdivision (e)(1). At the same hearing at which Williams entered the guilty
plea in this case, he also pled guilty in a separate case to misdemeanor “battery on a
person [he was] dating.” The police report in this case contains a text message in which
Williams mentions to his parole officer that he is buying dinner for a woman named
Kayla.
                                                4
jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. [¶] (b) The trial

court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with the clerk

of the court.” A certificate of probable cause is a condition precedent to any appeal

within the scope of section 1237.5. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098-

1099 (Mendez); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).) “The certificate functions as a

notice of appeal in cases involving negotiated dispositions, which notices are of a

‘fundamental jurisdictional nature.’” (People v. Allison (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 688, 698,

quoting In re Chavez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 643, 652.)

       Because Williams failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we lack

jurisdiction to consider any issues affecting the validity of the plea, and Williams is

consequently not entitled to a Wende review to search for such issues. However, because

a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge “[t]he sentence or other matters

occurring after the plea or admission that do not affect the validity of the plea or

admission,” Williams is entitled to a Wende review regarding those matters. (Cal. Rules

of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2); see also Mendez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 1088 [without a

certificate of probable cause, “a defendant may obtain review solely of so-called

‘noncertificate’ issues, that is, postplea questions not challenging his plea’s validity”].)

       Limiting our review to the sentence and postplea matters that do not affect the

plea’s validity, we have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable

issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)

                                               5
                                 DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               MENETREZ
                                                          J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                    P. J.

McKINSTER
                       J.

                                      6