People v. Williams CA2/8

Filed 3/23/22 P. v. Williams CA2/8 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B300682

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA124662) v.

MELVIN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Laura R. Walton, Judge. Dismissed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions. David M. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Charles S. Lee and Ryan M. Smith, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. **********

In 2013, defendant was charged in a consolidated information with 10 felony counts, including two counts of attempted murder arising from assaults on defendant’s former girlfriend and her brother while threatening them with a shotgun. After a jury trial in which defendant testified, defendant was found guilty of all charges and sentenced to an indeterminate term of 48 years to life, plus an eight-year determinate term. We affirmed defendant’s conviction. (People v. Williams (May 8, 2015, B252994) [nonpub. opn.].) After the passage of Senate Bill 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) in 2018, defendant filed, in propria persona, a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 was enacted as part of the legislative changes effected by Senate Bill 1437 and became effective January 1, 2019. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) In his petition, defendant erroneously asserted he had been convicted of murder (instead of attempted murder) under a theory of felony murder or the natural and probable consequences doctrine and requested the appointment of counsel. In support of his petition, defendant filed a document designated as both “supplemental evidence” in support of the resentencing petition and a “motion to dismiss” for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence. The trial court denied both the petition for resentencing and the motion to dismiss without appointing counsel for defendant, explaining that defendant did not qualify for resentencing, and the documents presented as exhibits to his motion to dismiss were not exculpatory evidence. Defendant appealed both denials. In our original decision, we affirmed the denial of defendant’s petition for resentencing and dismissed his appeal to the extent it sought to challenge the denial