People v. Williams CA5

California Court of Appeal Aug 16, 2024 No. F087269Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by imposing an upper term sentence on a firearm enhancement without the existence of aggravating circumstances found true by a factfinder, as required by Senate Bill No. 567.

Issues

Whether the trial court committed sentencing error under Senate Bill No. 567 by imposing an upper term sentence without the required findings of aggravating circumstances.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A trial court may impose an upper term sentence only where there are aggravating circumstances in the crime and the defendant has either stipulated to the facts underlying those circumstances or they have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“We accept the concession that defendant must be resentenced.”

Filed 8/16/24 P. v. Williams CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087269 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF123070B) v.

JOHN FITZGERALD WILLIAMS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. Solomon Wollack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans, and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant John Fitzgerald Williams was convicted of dozens of crimes in connection with a casino robbery he carried out with several accomplices, and a plan to rob the casino another time. Those convictions have been the subject of several appeals to this court, the most recent of which resulted in a reversal of his gang-related convictions and enhancements in light of changes wrought by Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333). (People v. Williams (F084882, June 29, 2023) [nonpub opn.] (Williams).) On remand, the prosecutor elected not to retry the gang-related convictions and enhancements, and defendant was resentenced. Defendant contends the court committed sentencing error under Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567), and the Attorney General agrees. We accept the concession, reverse the sentence, and remand the matter for resentencing. BACKGROUND1 Defendant Williams, along with several codefendants, was convicted of four counts of second-degree robbery (counts 1–4; Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (c)),21 six counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (counts 5–7, 9–11; § 245, subd. (b)), five counts of assault with an assault weapon (counts 12–14, 16–17; § 245, subd. (a)(3)), two counts of transporting an assault weapon (counts 19, 24; former § 12280, subd. (a)(1); see § 30600), two counts of participating in a criminal street gang (counts 21, 28; § 186.22, subd. (a)), one count of conspiracy to commit assault with a semiautomatic firearm (count 22; § 182, subd. (a)(1)), one count of conspiracy to commit robbery (count 23; § 182, subd. (a)(1)), and one count of carrying a loaded firearm in public by a member of a criminal street gang (count 26; former § 12031, subd. (a)(2)(C)).

People v. Williams CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief