People v. Williams-Hull CA3

Filed 12/31/24 P. v. Williams-Hull CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099934

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE20210009839) v.

GYNNA WILLIAMS-HULL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Gynna Williams-Hull asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will remand the matter for the trial court to calculate and award presentence custody credit and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2021, when defendant was 19 years old, she drove a companion to the victim’s location, so the companion could shoot the victim multiple times and kill him.

1

Defendant then drove the actual killer away from the scene to avoid arrest. Defendant was a direct aider and abettor and shared the actual killer’s intent to kill the victim. Defendant was charged with murder. (Pen. Code,1 § 187.) It was further alleged that, during the commission of the crime, a principal was armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) In June 2022, defendant pleaded guilty to second degree murder. As part of the plea, the trial court dismissed (1) the firearm enhancement and (2) a separate criminal case pending against defendant that is not at issue in this appeal. The September 2022 probation report noted defendant had no prior criminal record. It also stated that defendant was ineligible for probation due to the murder charge and recommended denying probation. The report further explained defendant was presumptively ineligible for probation pursuant to section 1203, subdivision (e)(2) (a person who used or attempted to use a deadly weapon upon a human being in connection with the current crime); (e)(3) (a person who willfully inflicted great bodily injury or torture in the commission of the current crime). The report then stated: “This officer considered California Rule of Court 4.413. The defendant is ineligible for probation.” The report also attached multiple character reference letters for defendant. In her November 2023 sentencing brief, defendant asked the trial court to place her on probation, arguing there were no circumstances rendering her ineligible for probation. Defendant further argued there were multiple mitigating circumstances, including: (1) she was not personally armed with a weapon during the crime (2) she had not used a weapon during the crime, (3) she did not personally inflict physical or emotional harm to the victim, (4) she did not demonstrate criminal sophistication or professionalism, (5) she played a less aggressive role than the codefendant, (6) she had no