People v. Williams CA2/3

Filed 6/2/15 P. v. Williams CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B261615

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA043629) v.

STEVEN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Susan M. Speer, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Defendant and appellant Steven Williams appeals from the denial of his petition for recall of sentence under Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (Pen. Code, §1170.126).1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2005, Williams was convicted of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)). Because Williams had two prior serious or violent felony convictions, he was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law to 35 years to life in prison.2 On September 5, 2014, Williams filed a petition for recall of sentence seeking relief under Proposition 36. In addition to requesting resentencing, he argued that his “current sentence was enhanced” due to his “priors from a prior plea agreement.” Because those priors occurred before the enactment of the Three Strikes law, he would not have entered into the plea had he known the priors could be used to enhance his current sentence. He also contended that his sentence violated the ex post facto clauses of the United States and California Constitutions and violated People v. Vargas (2014) 59 Cal.4th 635, which held that two prior convictions arising out of a single criminal act cannot constitute two strikes. The trial court appointed counsel to represent Williams. Williams filed a Marsden3 motion, but the record does not show it was ruled on. On January 5, 2015, the trial court denied the petition with prejudice, finding Williams ineligible for resentencing because his current conviction for arson is a serious felony (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(14)). The court dismissed without prejudice Williams’s contention under People v. Vargas, supra, 59 Cal.4th 635, and instructed him to submit it in a separate petition for writ of habeas corpus.