People v. Williams CA3

Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Williams CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092913

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 94F04063)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

BRIAN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In 1994, defendant shot and killed the victim, his girlfriend’s estranged husband, after an argument. A jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189; statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code) and found true a personal firearm use enhancement (former § 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawful possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subds. (b) - (i)). We affirmed defendant’s convictions on appeal but remanded the case for the court to exercise its discretion as to a sentencing issue. (People v. Williams (July 14, 1997, C021467) [nonpub. opn.].)

1

In 2019, defendant filed a former section 1170.95 petition for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). (Former section 1170.95 has since been renumbered section 1172.6, with no change in text [see stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10].) The trial court received briefing from the parties. The court then issued a written order denying the petition, saying defendant was ineligible for relief because “[h]e was the actual killer, and no felony-murder instruction was given [at trial], nor any instruction on the natural and probable consequences doctrine that applies to accomplice liability.” Defendant appealed and appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to Wende. We dismissed the appeal as abandoned. The California Supreme Court granted review of the case and later transferred the matter back to this court with instructions to vacate the dismissal and reconsider the case in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). This court vacated the dismissal and sent defendant a letter notifying him of his obligations under Delgadillo. Appointed counsel filed a brief asking the court to consider the issues raised in defendant’s supplemental brief and conduct an independent review of the record. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief raising various issues. We have considered defendant’s arguments and will affirm the trial court’s order.