People v. Williams CA1/1

Filed 12/1/20 P. v. Williams CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160382

v. (San Francisco City & County MARCELLIS WILLIAMS, Super. Ct. No. 13015322, SCN221214) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Marcellis Williams appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170.95. Because defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law, we affirm the court’s order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2013, an information was filed by the San Francisco District Attorney charging defendant with one count of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) with an allegation he was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), one count of residential burglary (§ 459), and one count of robbery (§ 211).2

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. The robbery count was later dismissed pursuant to defense counsel’s 2

section 995 motion.

The prosecutor, in April 2014, orally moved to add a charge of voluntary manslaughter. (§ 192, subd. (a).) Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter and first degree burglary, and admitted the arming allegation in exchange for dismissal of the murder charge and a sentence of 13 years 4 months. In July 2014, defendant was sentenced to the agreed-upon state prison term. After the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), on August 20, 2019, defendant filed a petition to vacate his 2014 conviction for voluntary manslaughter and to be resentenced pursuant to section 1170.95. In the petition, defendant alleged the information filed against him allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, he pled guilty to first or second degree murder in lieu of going to trial, he was not the actual killer, he did not with the intent to kill aid and abet the actual killer, he was not a major participant nor did he act with reckless indifference, and the victim was not a peace officer. He requested appointment of counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant. Defense counsel filed a supplemental memorandum in support of defendant’s petition, asserting the language of the preamble to Senate Bill 1437 indicates the statute applies to someone who pleads guilty to manslaughter to avoid a conviction for first or second degree murder under one of the applicable theories. Defense counsel also filed a memorandum citing to recent published decisions on manslaughter pleas and eligibility for relief under section 1170.95.