People v. Williams CA4/1

Filed 10/16/24 P. v. Williams CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083637

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD242869)

JOHN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Rogers and Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2023, John Williams, who is serving an aggregate prison term of more than 38 years, filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 to

reduce his conviction for receiving stolen property worth less than $950, an offense Proposition 47 reclassified as a misdemeanor. The offense—charged as count 5—was one of multiple felonies a jury found he committed in 2013. The trial court approved Williams’ petition but neither appointed counsel nor set a resentencing hearing as he requested. Williams argues he was entitled to both these measures. The People concede error. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the People’s concession and affirm the trial court’s reclassification of the offense. Yet we remand for the trial court to vacate Williams’ sentence, appoint counsel to represent Williams, and conduct a full resentencing hearing. A section 1170.18 petition allows a petitioner to request a resentencing hearing on a felony that would have been a misdemeanor under current law. (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) The trial court must determine if the petitioner meets the criteria for a misdemeanor reduction; if so, the court shall, subject to an exception not relevant here, recall the felony sentence and resentence the petitioner to a misdemeanor. (Id., subd. (b).) We review de novo whether section 1170.18 requires the trial court to schedule a full resentencing hearing with appointment of counsel upon granting the petition. (People v. Simms (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 987, 994.) Here, the trial court ruled on Williams’ petition using a standard form. It marked the box granting Williams’ petition and reducing his conviction for receiving stolen property (count 5) from a felony to a misdemeanor. Although the People agreed Williams was “entitled to resentencing” as to count 5, the court did not mark the box to set a resentencing hearing. As the People concede, this was error. Our Supreme Court has stated that, “when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for