People v. Williams CA3

Filed 4/26/22 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Lassen) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091865

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CH036654)

v.

JOEL LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Joel Lee Williams guilty of a single count of possession of a weapon by an inmate and the trial court found true an allegation defendant had received a prior strike conviction. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to strike the prior strike conviction under Penal

1

Code section 13851 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with one count of possession of a weapon by an inmate. (§ 4502, subd. (a).) The prosecution also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) for a 2007 burglary conviction. At trial, a correctional officer testified he searched defendant’s cell. During the search, he and another officer found three sharpened pieces of metal concealed in defendant’s typewriter. The officer explained inmates typically sharpen metal objects to use as weapons that can injure or kill staff or other inmates. Another officer opined the items found in defendant’s typewriter had been sharpened to use as weapons. Defendant testified there were no weapons in his typewriter and that the weapons had been planted. Defendant admitted the prior strike conviction allegation. The jury then found him guilty of the weapon possession count. Before sentencing, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to strike his prior strike conviction. In the motion, defendant argued the current offense was “not violent or life-threatening,” defendant’s sentence would be “unduly harsh” with the prior strike, and defendant had been “respectful to the Court and cooperative with the security detail during trial.” At the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it had considered granting the motion and imposing the midterm sentence of three years or denying the motion and imposing the lower term of two years, doubled by the prior strike, for a four-year sentence. The prosecution argued defendant’s 2007 conviction involved “fairly serious crimes,” including burglary, robbery, and assault, as well as weapon enhancements. Moreover, as an inmate, defendant should have had a general disincentive to commit