People v. Williams CA3

Filed 9/29/22 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095020

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2100660)

v.

ZACHARY PAUL WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Zachary Paul Williams has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In March 2021, defendant learned that a man to whom he owed a debt had a strained relationship with a woman. Defendant offered to kidnap that woman in order to clear his debt. Defendant placed the woman in a chokehold, and she awoke tied to a

1

chair. Over the next three days, defendant repeatedly forced the woman to orally copulate him, and raped and sodomized her with his penis and a fire poker. Defendant brought the woman to another location, a nearby residence, where he fought a second woman and her boyfriend. Defendant had a gun in one hand and a machete in the other. He struck the male victim in the face with the machete five or six times, and both the male victim and the second woman were wounded by gunshots. An August 2021 amended information charged defendant with 13 offenses, including: kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a); count VII),1 with a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); attempted murder (§§ 664/187 subd. (a); count X), with great bodily injury and personal use of a firearm enhancements (§§ 12022.7, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a)); and, assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count XIII). The information also alleged defendant had a 2004 Texas conviction that, if committed in California, “would be a first degree burglary in violation of . . . section 459,” and therefore was a “prior strike” conviction for purposes of California’s three strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12.) Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant (1) pleaded no contest to counts VII, X, and XIII; (2) admitted all allegations accompanying those counts; and (3) admitted that his 2004 Texas conviction was a “strike” conviction, which could double the amount of time defendant would serve for each offense. Defendant also agreed the trial court could use defendant’s preliminary hearing as a factual basis for his plea. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to seek dismissal of the remaining counts and stipulate to a sentence of 48 years to life. In September 2021, consistent with the parties’ negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 48 years to life: (1) a