People v. Williams CA2/5

Filed 2/9/26 P. v. Williams CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B341733

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. LA053527)

NANSHON WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Jesic, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Bess Stiffelman, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Nanshon Williams (defendant) was convicted of second degree murder and assault with a firearm in 2008. He was sentenced to 47 years to life in prison. More recently, he filed a Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) petition for resentencing arguing he is eligible for resentencing as a juvenile offender serving the functional equivalent of a life without parole (LWOP) sentence.1 The trial court denied his petition, believing he was categorically ineligible for resentencing because he did not receive an actual LWOP sentence and the 47 years to life sentence he did receive was not long enough to qualify as the functional equivalent of LWOP. Defendant appeals that determination, and the issue is one our Supreme Court is set to resolve in People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828. Acknowledging our Supreme Court will have the final word, we hold, having given defendant’s circumstances individualized consideration, that defendant is eligible for resentencing because he is serving a sentence that constitutes the functional equivalent of LWOP. Because the issue presented in this appeal will be definitively resolved by our Supreme Court, the explanation of the reasons for our holding can be brief. Defendant was 17 years old at the time he committed the crimes of conviction. This court’s opinion resolving his direct appeal reveals defendant and the murder victim, 16-year-old D.R., were involved in a gang- related confrontation that led to an exchange of gunfire between them both—and D.R.’s death. A trial jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and found true associated firearm and