People v. Williams CA2/4

Filed 10/28/25 P. v. Williams CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B340567

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA464693 ) v.

TYRESE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Tyrese Williams appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion for relief due to discrimination pursuant to the Racial Justice Act (Penal Code §§ 745, 1473, subd. (e)) (RJA).)1 His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Williams filed five supplemental briefs. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not appealable and dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND In 2019, a grand jury indicted Williams and several others on 93 counts, including charges of criminal street gang conspiracy, robbery, burglary, mayhem, and torture. In September 2021, Williams entered a no contest plea to three counts of first degree residential burglary (§ 459; counts 43, 61, 73) and one count of second degree commercial burglary (§ 459; count 58). The court sentenced Williams to a total of nine years and four months in state prison, consisting of the upper term of six years on count 43, a consecutive term of eight months (one-third the mid-term) on count 58, and consecutive terms of 16 months (one-third the mid-term) on counts 61 and 73. Williams filed several petitions for writ of habeas corpus with the trial court, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking resentencing on multiple grounds. In February 2024, the court denied the petitions but appointed counsel to assist Williams in perfecting any remaining resentencing claims. Accordingly, in May 2024, Williams filed a motion through appointed counsel requesting recall of sentence and resentencing under the RJA. He argued there was evidence that a longer or more severe sentence was imposed on him and others of his race than on other similarly situated individuals. He also argued there was evidence of bias toward him because of his race exhibited by attorneys, expert witnesses, and the court. In addition, Williams “invited” the court to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1(a)(1) to recall his sentence and resentence him under new laws enacted since his initial sentence. On August 5, 2024, the court issued a written order summarily denying the habeas petition based on the RJA. The court found that the petition was