People v. Williams CA4/1

Filed 2/4/25 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D074098

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD268493) JERIMIAH IRA WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth So, Judge. Remanded for resentencing. Rebecca P. Jones, 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 J. Hilton and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This is our second appeal involving defendant Jerimiah Ira Williams. In 2018, the trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 100 years to life plus a determinate sentence of 86 years two months for One Strike

offenses (Pen. Code, § 667.61),2 after a jury convicted him of 13 counts involving victims Jane Does 1 and 2. In affirming the judgment in the published portion of our opinion (People v. Williams (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 475, 493), we rejected Williams’ argument that his equal protection rights were violated because he is statutorily ineligible for a youth parole hearing pursuant to section 3051, subdivision (h) as a result of being a One-Strike offender. The Supreme Court granted review, limited to the equal protection question. It recently issued its decision rejecting Williams’ equal protection challenge. (People v. Williams (2024) 17 Cal.5th 99.) In remanding, the Williams court directed us “to consider any briefing on defendant’s entitlement to the benefit of any ameliorative legislation enacted during the pendency of his appeal.” (Id. at p. 138.) Williams has submitted a supplemental brief arguing his case is not yet final and he is entitled to a full resentencing based on several statutory changes that may affect his determinate sentence. He further argues that at resentencing he is entitled to object to the previously imposed fees, fines, and assessments because he did not have an ability-to-pay hearing.