People v. Williams CA2/1

Filed 10/28/15 P. v. Williams CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B263193

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA084964) v.

CHARMAR WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steven R. Van Sicklen, Judge. Affirmed as modified. ______ H. Russell Halpern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Roberta L. Davis, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

Charmar Williams appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Williams contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. We requested briefing on whether the trial court erred by using the “Three Strikes” law to impose a second life term on the attempted murder count. We reject Williams’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument but conclude that his sentence on the attempted murder count is erroneous. We modify the sentence to impose a 14-year minimum period of confinement on the life term and to strike the second life term. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The Information An information, filed on October 24, 2012, charged Williams with willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)1) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The information specially alleged firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53, as well as a prior serious or violent felony conviction for robbery (§ 211) that qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and subjected Williams to a section 667, subdivision (a)(1), enhancement. 2. The Evidence at Trial Williams and Sebastian Pitts, whose girlfriend was Williams’s ex-wife, had a history of altercations. In 2008, Williams stabbed Pitts in the neck with a key. Pitts required stitches and rehabilitation due to his injuries. Williams said that he had stabbed Pitts to protect himself because Pitts, who was much larger than Williams, was making verbal threats toward him; Pitts said that Williams was yelling at him before the stabbing. Several years later, Pitts, in retaliation for the stabbing, beat up Williams outside a grocery store, causing Williams severe injuries. A few months after the grocery-store incident, on the afternoon of July 17, 2012, Pitts and his girlfriend left the girlfriend’s eye doctor appointment and drove to a