People v. Williams CA6

Filed 4/4/23 P. v. Williams CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050500 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MCR7889)

v.

JACOB LEE WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT 1 Defendant Jacob Lee Williams appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95.2 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 In 1992, Williams was convicted, after a court trial, of second degree murder (§ 187) and burglary (§ 459). The court also found true that Williams had personally used a knife in the commission of the murder. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The court sentenced

1Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J. and Wilson, J. 2Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6, with no changes to the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) 3 The facts of the offense are not relevant to the analysis and disposition of the

appeal and therefore we have omitted them.

Williams to 16 years to life in state prison. This court affirmed that conviction. (The People v Williams (Oct. 21, 1993, No. H010251) [nonpub. opn.].) On August 22, 2022, Williams filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95. On August 4, 2022, the District Attorney conceded that Williams had made a prima facie showing under section 1172.6, subdivision (c), and requested that an evidentiary hearing be set under section 1172.6, subdivision (d)(1). The parties stipulated that the court could rely on the transcript from the preliminary hearing at the evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing on October 13, 2022, the court denied the petition after finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Williams was the actual killer. Williams timely appealed. On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). We notified Williams that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, and that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal as abandoned. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) Williams filed a timely supplemental brief. II. DISCUSSION In Williams’s supplemental brief, he argues that he is entitled to be resentenced under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). Williams does not raise an arguable issue on appeal. An issue is arguable if it has a reasonable potential for success, and, if resolved favorably for the appellant, the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.) Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1437 amended sections 188 and 189, which pertain to the definition of malice and the degrees of murder. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, §§ 2-3.) As amended, section 188 provides: “Except as stated in subdivision (e) of Section 189, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her 2