People v. Williams CA3

Filed 5/28/21 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090936

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18FE009271)

v.

MICHELLE RAYLENE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant, Michelle Raylene Williams, guilty of robbery and misdemeanor theft, the trial court placed her on probation for five years subject to certain terms and conditions. Defendant appeals, contending that a condition of her probation prohibiting contact with the victim (the “no-contact condition”) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because it does not specify that it prohibits only knowing and purposeful contact. For reasons we explain below, we find this contention to be without merit. However, our review of the record has disclosed an error by the trial court in staying a $40 court operations assessment (Pen Code, § 1465.8. subd. (a)(1))1 and a $30

1 Undesignated references are to the Penal Code.

1

court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) pursuant to section 654. (See People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 370 [holding that the court security fee must be imposed on the count stayed pursuant to section 654]; People v. Sencion (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 480, 482 [holding “the trial court was required to impose a court facilities assessment . . . as to each count including those stayed under section 654, subdivision (a)”].) We will modify the judgment to correct this error and affirm the judgment as modified. BACKGROUND In pertinent part, the People’s amended information charged defendant and two codefendants with robbery (§ 211) and misdemeanor theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). Evidence presented at trial established that defendant placed merchandise from the Fallas Discount Store in her purse and attempted to leave the store without paying. Her actions were observed by the loss prevention officer who, along with security, contacted defendant and her codefendants just outside the store’s inner door. Defendant used her body weight to push one of those employees, Michael F., through the store’s outer door. Defendant kept pushing until she reached her car and attempted to open the car door. Michael F. blocked entry to the car with his arm and, in response, defendant grabbed that arm and tried to bite him. Michael F. withdrew his arm and took defendant to the ground where he handcuffed her. Michael F. sustained a superficial injury to his left knee in the process. Fallas property was recovered from defendant’s purse after she was detained. Defendant testified, admitting she moved a shirt from her cart to her purse, but denied that she was trying to steal anything. She also denied attempting to bite Michael F. and that any store merchandise was recovered from her purse. Rather, defendant asserted she placed the shirt in her purse to shop and look at clothes on racks outside the store because she was not allowed to take the cart outside. Once confronted by Michael F., she threw the shirt on the ground and did not know her companions were shoplifting.