People v. Chism CA1/4

Filed 9/25/24 P. v. Chism CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167714

v. (Contra Costa County WILLIAM CHISM, Super. Ct. No. 059100058) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Chism appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition under Penal Code1 section 1203.4. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, but he instead filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After our own independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND On June 14, 2022, defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4 alleging that, in December of 1990, he was convicted of felonious oral copulation within the meaning of

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

former section 288a2, subdivision (c) (as amended by Stats. 1988, ch. 1243, § 7 (former section 288a(c)). He alleged that an element of former section 288a(c) is proof of an age disparity of 10 or more years, but at the time of his offense, he was 22 years old and the victim was 13 years old. Defendant further alleged that he may have been convicted under former section 288a, subdivision (b) because he was placed on probation for the offense and jailed for six months. He stated that he fulfilled the conditions of his probation, and he sought relief from his conviction in the interests of justice. The petition was referred to the Contra Costa Probation Department (probation), and probation filed a recommendation and an amended recommendation. Probation recommended that the petition be denied for three reasons: (1) there was a prison commitment on the current docket; (2) defendant was not entitled to relief under section 1203.4, subsection (b); and (3) defendant suffered subsequent convictions (three misdemeanors and one felony). Defendant filed objections to probation’s recommendation. He stated that he was currently serving a state prison sentence but contended that his current commitment was unrelated to the former section 288a(c) convictions at issue in his petition, any subsequent convictions were after he successfully completed probation, and he did not suffer the conviction from October 2011 as shown on probation’s recommendation.