People v. Williams CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Sep 16, 2025 No. B339270Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if their judgment includes a qualifying section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, regardless of whether that enhancement was executed or stayed.

Issues

Whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when a section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement was stayed rather than executed.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, the court held that section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the judgment includes a qualifying section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, regardless of whether the enhancement was executed or stayed.”

“We can only conclude that Williams is still serving a sentence that includes a section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement and, therefore, he is entitled to a full resentencing under section 1172.75.”

Filed 9/16/25 P. v. Williams CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B339270

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA258753) v.

DEXTER ERIC WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Terry A. Bork, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Christopher Love, 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, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Charles Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2005, a jury found Dexter Eric Williams guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1)2 and shooting from a motor vehicle (former § 12034, subd. (c); count 2). As to both counts, the jury found true allegations that Williams personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d)). The trial court found true that Williams had suffered a prior strike, and that he suffered a prior serious felony conviction and a prior prison commitment within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (a)(1) and 667.5, subdivision (b). The section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements were both based on a single prior conviction for a violation of section 192, subdivision (a), in 1993. The trial court sentenced Williams to a total term of 60 years to life. On count 1, the court imposed a term of 15 years to life, doubled for the prior strike (30 years); plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearm enhancement; plus five years for the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) prior serious felony enhancement. The court appeared to stay the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, as well as the

People v. Williams CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B339270

DEXTER ERIC WILLIAMS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ADAMS, J.

HANASONO, J.

AI Brief