People v. Williams CA6

Filed 12/12/13 P. v. Williams CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039545 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1122269)

v.

LAWRENCE LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Lawrence Lee Williams pleaded guilty to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§459, 460, subd. (b))1 and check forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)) and admitted the allegations that he had one prior violent or serious felony conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)- (i)) that also qualified as a strike within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and he had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). After granting defendant’s motion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) to dismiss the prior strike conviction and striking the four prior prison term allegations, the trial court imposed a total term of 16 months in the state prison in accordance with the plea agreement.

1 All statutory references hereafter are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appointed counsel has filed an opening brief that states the case and facts but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. The 30-day period has elapsed and we have received no response from defendant. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in People v. Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND According to the probation report, on December 16, 2011, police officers responded to a report of check fraud in progress at a Bank of America in Milpitas. After arriving, the officers contacted defendant near a bank entrance and informed him that they were investigating a possible check fraud. Defendant initially told the officers that a friend had asked him to cash a check and she would pay him $200 for doing so. Defendant then told the officers that while he was at a gas station he was approached by a woman named “ ‘Monique’ ” who asked him if he wanted to earn $200 by cashing a check. Since defendant was homeless and needed money, he agreed even though he knew it was a scam. He was also afraid that the persons involved in the check scam would harm him if he did not comply. Monique took defendant to a bank in Richmond where he opened an account. She then drove him to the Bank of America in Milpitas, where they met a person who provided them with the check. The plan was that defendant would cash the check and then deposit his $200 payment in his new bank account. Whether or to what extent the plan was carried out is unclear in the presently available record. However, the police