People v. Williams CA3

Filed 08/23/24 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099532

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- 2019-13464) v.

WAYNE EDWARD WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Wayne Edward Williams guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, the trial court sentenced him to the upper term of seven years in state prison. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in selecting the upper term by relying on a remote prior conviction. Because the prior conviction was for the same crime and was followed by two additional convictions, we disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2020, a jury found defendant guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a); the 2020 conviction). (People v. Williams

1

(Oct. 26, 2022, C093709) [nonpub. opn.].)1 During the trial, defendant admitted to having five prior convictions involving moral turpitude, three in 1996, one in 2002, and one in 2016 for evading a peace officer. The prosecution sought the upper term for the 2020 conviction based on various factors, including defendant’s prior convictions. The trial court agreed with the prosecution and imposed the upper term. In 2021, defendant appealed, and a different panel of this court remanded for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). (People v. Williams, supra, C093709.) The panel noted that defendant stipulated to a 1996 conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6; the 1996 conviction), but could not “conclude with any certainty that the trial court would have imposed the upper term based solely on that aggravating circumstance.” (People v. Williams, supra, C093709.) On remand, the trial court again sentenced defendant to the upper term, citing the 1996 conviction for the same offense as an aggravating factor and no “mitigating factors that would cause [it] to say that the aggravating factor does not outweigh the mitigating factors.” Defendant timely appealed. On appeal, defendant admits that he was sentenced to eight years in state prison for the 1996 conviction and that he has two other prior convictions: (1) a 2002 conviction for possessing components to manufacture methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11383, subd. (c); the 2002 conviction) and (2) a 2016 conviction for evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2; the 2016 conviction). (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (2009) 46 Cal.4th 501, 506, fn. 1 [factual statements in a brief may be treated as an admission or stipulation when adverse to the party making it].)