Court Opinion

ID: 9949591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 22:02:09.680661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:02.837343
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/11/24 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E082699

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FWV18001472)

 STEVEN STEPHON WILLIAMS,                                                OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson

Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.

         Steven Stephon Williams, in pro. per.; and Laura Arnold, under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Defendant and appellant Steven Stephon Williams appeals from the trial court’s

denial of his in propria persona petition for resentencing on an enhancement he asserted

                                                             1
was imposed pursuant to Penal Code,1 section 667.5, subdivision (b). (See former

§ 1171.1, recodified as § 1172.75 [invalidating certain enhancements imposed under

§ 667.5, subd. (b), and providing procedure for recall and resentencing].) The trial court

appointed counsel for defendant and subsequently denied the petition because, as counsel

acknowledged at the hearing on the petition, defendant “did not plead [guilty to], nor did

the Court . . . sentence him [for a] prior prison [term] under 667.5(b).”

       Defendant appealed and was appointed counsel. Counsel’s record review and

legal research disclosed no arguable issue to advance on appeal, including after

consulting with Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel filed a brief requesting that we

independently examine the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)

and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). Counsel did not suggest any

potential issues for our review. This court advised defendant he could file his own

supplemental brief, and he did so.

       In appeals from denial of postconviction relief, as here, the appellate court may

conduct independent Wende and Anders review in its discretion. (People v. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 230-232.) When the defendant “files a supplemental brief or

letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that

brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.)

       Changing the premises of his argument on appeal, defendant contends in his

supplemental brief that his conviction included a five-year habitual offender enhancement

       1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
under section 667, subdivision (a)(1), for which he seeks resentencing, rather than for a

section 667.5 prison prior as he alleged in his petition. He also alters the foundation for

his claim for sentencing relief from section 1171.1 to 1172.1.

       Even assuming arguendo that these new claims are not forfeited, there is no merit

to defendant’s contentions in his petition or on appeal. The record plainly contradicts

them. The trial court did not impose any of the enhancements defendant claims it did.

       Defendant admitted a prior strike under “P.C. 1170.12(a)-(d),” which, as reflected

on his plea form, doubled to 12 years the base term of the home invasion robbery offense

to which he also pled guilty. No enhancements under sections 667.5, subdivision (b), or

667, subdivision (a)(1), for which he now seeks relief were imposed; they are absent from

his plea agreement, the court’s sentencing colloquy, and its minute order and abstract of

judgment. Defendant is simply factually mistaken in the premises for his argument. He

is also mistaken as a matter of law because section 1171.1 by its terms does not apply to

enhancements imposed under section 1170.12, nor have there been any changes to

section 1170.12 since defendant’s sentencing that could arguably trigger section 1172.1.

The latter’s recall and resentencing procedures, in any event, may only be initiated by the

court on its own motion or by specified authorities, not the defendant. (§ 1172.1,

subd. (a)(1).)

                                              3
                                    DISPOSITION

      The trial court’s order denying defendant’s request for postconviction relief is

affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               McKINSTER
                                                                               Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
                         J.

FIELDS
                         J.

                                            4