People v. Williams CA2/2

Filed 5/27/25 P. v. Williams CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B335254

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. NA096165)

ANTHONY TRAYVON WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Tomson T. Ong, Judge. Affirmed.

Esther R. Sorkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

In 2014, defendant and appellant Anthony Trayvon Williams was convicted of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))1 and first degree residential burglary (§ 459). In 2023, while defendant was serving a 36-year-to-life sentence, the trial court resentenced him to 35 years to life pursuant to section 1172.75.2 On appeal from his resentencing, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to strike any of defendant’s five-year serious felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)). Finding no abuse of the court’s discretion, we affirm. BACKGROUND I. Facts “On April 4, 2013, Shinobu Saito (Shinobu) and Yoko Saito (collectively Saitos) were living in a house in San Pedro. At 10:30 a.m., they locked the house and left for a doctor’s appointment. Upon their return, they discovered that the bedroom window in back of their home was broken and ‘everything was scattered all over the floor and the bed.’ The following items had been taken: ‘a lot of wrist watches,’ a necklace, bracelets, coins, 60 one-hundred dollar bills ($6,000), and a flashlight with Shinobu’s nickname, ‘Doc’, etched on it.” (People v. Williams (Feb. 27, 2017, B257027) [nonpub. opn.]