People v. Williams CA3

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C100834

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE20110006851, v. SF118317A)

BILLY DEWAYNE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Billy Dewayne Williams purports to appeal from an order declining his invitation for recall and resentencing pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 600) and Penal Code section 1172.1.1 We will dismiss the appeal.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted in 2012 of two counts of car jacking (§ 215, subd. (a)), two counts of second-degree robbery (§ 211), and one count of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), with various firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate determinate term of 30 years eight months. Defendant’s sentence was adjusted several times over the years. By 2022, defendant’s sentence had been reduced to an aggregate determinate term of 18 years eight months. Defendant filed a pro se request for resentencing pursuant to Assembly Bill 600 in November 2023. The trial court appointed counsel and set a hearing on the request. Defendant submitted letters and other documentation in support of the request. The prosecution filed an “informational brief” in response, urging the trial court to decline defendant’s invitation for resentencing and drop the matter from the calendar. The trial court ruled from the bench in March 2024, stating: “Mr. Williams has filed with the [c]ourt an invitation to recall and resentence him pursuant to . . . section 1172.1. The [c]ourt declines the invitation.” The trial court then entered a minute order stating: “The Court declines the invitation.” Defendant appeals. II. DISCUSSION Defendant appeals from the order declining his invitation for recall and resentencing pursuant to Assembly Bill 600 and section 1172.1. According to defendant, the trial court accepted the invitation and “effectively recalled the matter . . . to consider resentencing on its own motion.” The trial court erred, defendant says, by summarily denying the request without stating its reasons for doing so on the record. The People respond the order was not appealable; and therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal. We need not reach the question whether an order declining an