People v. Williams CA1/5

Filed 3/21/14 P. v. Williams CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138905 v. INDUGO A. WILLIAMS, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. SC183617E, Defendant and Appellant. SC183620B)

Indugo A. Williams appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed after he entered a guilty plea to multiple counts and admitted serving a prior prison term. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In case number SC183617E, Williams was charged with attempted kidnapping (Pen. Code, §§ 207, subd. (a), 664), assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)).1 It was also alleged that he had eight prior felony convictions for purposes of section 1203, subdivision

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

(e)(4), and served eight prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). In case number SC183620B, Williams was charged with second degree robbery (§ 211) and receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). It was again alleged that he had eight prior felony convictions (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and served eight prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On March 7, 2013, Williams moved for a separate trial from his codefendants in case number SC183617E. The record does not contain a ruling on this motion. On March 13, 2013, Williams signed a “Plea of Guilty” form in each case. In case number SC183617E, he agreed to plead guilty to one count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) and to admit a prison prior. In case number SC183620B, he agreed to plead guilty to an amended count of accessory after the fact (§ 32). The prosecutor agreed the other charges would be dismissed (with “Harvey waivers”) and Williams would receive an aggregate three-year state prison sentence, comprised of the two-year low term on the conviction for assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury and a one-year consecutive term for the prior prison enhancement (SC183617E), with a concurrent two-year middle term for the accessory after-the-fact conviction (SC183620B). In the written plea agreements, which Williams and his attorney signed, Williams indicated that he understood his maximum punishment and understood and waived specified constitutional rights in entering his guilty pleas. At the plea hearing on March 13, 2013, Williams was present and represented by counsel. The court reviewed the written plea forms with Williams, and Williams confirmed that he signed them. After being advised of his constitutional rights and acknowledging that he understood and waived those rights, Williams entered a plea of guilty to the count of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury, admitted the prison prior, and entered a guilty plea to the accessory count, which was added to the complaint by a stipulated amendment. The court found Williams’s pleas were intelligent, knowing and voluntary and, based on the evidence received at the