People v. Williams CA4/3

Filed 6/4/25 P. v. Williams CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064661

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1303892)

BYRON LOWE WILLIAMS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Jeffrey S. Kross, 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, Alana Butler and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Byron Lowe Williams appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Williams contends the court erred in concluding he was not entitled to relief because his sentencing enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b), were imposed but stayed, not executed. We agree with Williams and reverse and remand for resentencing. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2015, Williams pled guilty to various felony offenses and admitted eight sentencing enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) (prison priors). The trial court sentenced Williams to a total term of 11 years in state prison. The court sentenced Williams to one year of prison on each of his eight prison prior enhancements but stayed each of the eight sentences. In 2022, Williams filed a petition for recall and resentencing under sections 1172.7 and 1172.75. The hearing on the petition was continued for over a year, and on December 21, 2023, the trial court heard Williams’s resentencing petition. After hearing oral argument, the court ultimately denied the petition, concluding Williams was ineligible for relief because his prison prior enhancements were stayed, not executed. The court reasoned since the sentences were stayed, Williams was not serving a term on the prison priors, as articulated in the statute. The court subsequently vacated the stayed sentences on Williams’s eight prison prior enhancements and, instead, struck them. The amended abstract of judgment does not reflect any of the eight prison prior enhancements, nor the struck sentences. Williams timely appealed.