People v. Williams CA3

Filed 1/27/26 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101215

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR618862)

v.

JOHN WILLIAMS III,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant John Williams III guilty of two counts of second degree robbery. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 16 years, which included an upper term sentence on one of the robbery convictions. On defendant’s original appeal, another panel of this court agreed with defendant that the trial court improperly imposed the upper term based on the increasing seriousness of his prior convictions without relying on a certified record of conviction. We remanded for a full resentencing. At resentencing, relying on a certified copy of defendant’s rap sheet from

1

the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), the trial court determined that defendant’s prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 16 years, including an upper term sentence. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by imposing an upper term sentence in the absence of a personal jury trial waiver on the aggravating circumstance that his prior convictions were numerous and of increasing seriousness. The People agree. Given the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 (Wiley), we agree with the parties and will remand for a full resentencing. Given this conclusion, we need not address defendant’s additional claims of error. I. BACKGROUND The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are not relevant to this appeal, but a detailed summary can be found at People v. Williams (Sept. 25, 2023, C095180) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams).1 In 2021, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)2 and, as to each count, found true a personal use of a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 16 years in prison, which included an upper term sentence on one of the robbery convictions. (Williams, supra, C095180.) The court selected the upper term because “defendant ha[d] a significant and increasingly serious criminal record, including seven prior felony convictions, one of which was for robbery.” (Ibid.) On direct appeal from the judgment, defendant asserted, among other things, that following passage of Senate Bill No. 567