People v. Williams CA2/5

Filed 3/9/22 P. v. Williams CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B305915

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA073548) v.

GARY WAYNE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie E. Brown, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Ron Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

Defendant Gary Wayne Williams was sentenced to prison for burglary and robbery in 2012. In 2020, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the trial court, recommending that defendant’s sentence be recalled and he be resentenced under changes in the law that were applicable to defendant. The trial court summarily declined to exercise its discretion to resentence defendant. On appeal, defendant raises a number of challenges to the trial court’s denial, arguing he was entitled to several procedural protections. While this appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted a statute specifically providing the protections defendant seeks in proceedings following a CDCR recommendation for resentencing. While the Attorney General does not concede that the new statute is retroactive to defendant’s case, it suggests that, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we remand for a hearing under the new statute. We conclude the trial court erred issuing its order denying resentencing without providing adequate notice to defendant. We accept the suggestion of the Attorney General and remand. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 29, 2010, defendant was charged by information with two counts of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and three counts of robbery (§ 211) arising out a single incident. It was alleged that a principal was armed within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant was also alleged to have suffered two prior strikes (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)); two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).