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Filed 6/12/23 P. v. Williams CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092951

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 10F03247)

v. OPINION ON TRANSFER

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant, Charles Williams, was convicted of first degree murder after he ended a personal dispute with competing pimp Marcel Hatch by shooting him during a drive-by assassination. (People v. Williams (Jan. 30, 2012, C067736) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams).) We upheld this conviction in an unpublished decision in 2012. (Ibid.) Following the passage of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437), defendant sought resentencing under former Penal Code section 1170.95 (statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code), which the trial court denied. Defendant’s counsel filed a no issues brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and defendant filed a pro. per. supplemental brief essentially rearguing the sufficiency of the evidence at trial to support his conviction. In an unpublished opinion, we dismissed defendant’s appeal as abandoned without addressing the arguments

1

contained within defendant’s supplemental brief. (People v. Williams (Sept. 20, 2021; C092951) [unpub. opn.].) Defendant petitioned our Supreme Court for review; that court has now directed us to vacate the prior decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. On April 18, 2023, this court sent a letter notifying defendant: (1) his counsel filed an appellate brief stating his review of the record did not identify any arguable issues; (2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. On May 1, 2023, defendant filed a supplemental brief again attacking the sufficiency of the evidence at trial supporting his murder conviction, alleging possible prosecutorial misconduct, attacking the denial of a motion to continue his original trial, and complaining about post-conviction discovery proceedings. Defendant also argued his case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing under People v. Maldonado (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1257. Having considered defendant’s arguments, we will affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s petition.