People v. Williams CA3

Filed 8/14/23 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096257

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00241)

v.

MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Michael Leon Williams guilty of murder, receipt of stolen property, assault with a deadly weapon, and found true various enhancements for crimes he committed when he was 16 years old. The criminal court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on the murder, and an unauthorized 15-years-to-life term on the firearms enhancement. On direct appeal, this court conditionally reversed his conviction and remanded the matter to the juvenile court1 with instructions to conduct a transfer hearing

1 We will refer to the criminal court or a court of criminal jurisdiction to mean the court system for adults and juveniles who are tried as adults and to distinguish that system from the juvenile court system, where most juvenile matters are handled.

1

pursuant to Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57). (See People v. Williams et al. (June 25, 2019, C080504) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams).) We further directed the criminal court to impose the correct sentence on the firearms enhancement if the case were transferred back to the criminal court. On remand and transfer, rather than reinstating the 50-years-to-life sentence as directed, the criminal court modified the sentence by changing a three-year concurrent term to a consecutive term. Defendant appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code, section 707 via Assembly Bill No. 2361 (Reg. Sess. 2021-2022) (Assembly Bill 2361) (Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1). Defendant seeks a second conditional reversal arguing the juvenile court must apply this new law’s higher burden of proof. The People concede a conditional reversal is appropriate. Defendant also argues the criminal court exceeded the scope of the prior remand order when it improperly added the three-year-consecutive term. Once again, the People agree this is error. We shall conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the juvenile court for an amenability hearing in compliance with the new law. If the juvenile court transfers the cause to the criminal court, we shall further order the criminal court to modify the consecutive sentence so that it is concurrent with the indeterminate term for murder. I. BACKGROUND A detailed recitation of the underlying facts of defendant’s crimes is unnecessary for this appeal.2 It suffices to say that, in the first incident, defendant and his codefendants committed a carjacking, pistol-whipped the victim, and stole his jewelry. In the second incident, defendant and his codefendants stole clothing from a store, and while trying to escape, defendant ran over the loss prevention employee. In the third