People v. Williams CA4/3

Filed 2/14/23 P. v. Williams CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061618

v. (Super. Ct. No. 02CF2397)

ELLIS CHARLES WILLIAMS, OPI NION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick H. Donahue, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

There is very little we can say about this appeal. Appellant was convicted in 2007 of four counts of attempted murder and one count each of shooting from a motor vehicle and shooting at an inhabited dwelling. This all grew out of a classic revenge drive-by. Allegations he had suffered other felony convictions were found to be true. The trial court stayed some punishments and constructed a 32 years-to-life term of imprisonment. In 2022, appellant filed this action, seeking relief pursuant to newly enacted 1 Penal Code section 1170.95. Section 1170.95 is the procedural mechanism for implementing legislative changes in California law which narrow the scope of vicarious liability for murder in two ways. First, the Legislature eliminated the natural and probable consequences theory for that crime by providing that “[m]alice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.” (§ 188, subd. (a)(3).) Second, it reined in the felony murder rule so that it can only be applied to nonkillers if they aided and abetted the killer in committing first degree murder, or they were a major participant in the underlying felony and acted recklessly indifferent to human life. (§ 189, subd. (e).) To obtain relief under the new section, the defendant must show 1) he was prosecuted for murder under the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine, 2) he was ultimately convicted of first or second degree murder, and 3) and he would not be liable for murder today because of how the Legislature has redefined that offense. (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)