People v. Williams CA3

Filed 8/29/23 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C098093

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08F01226)

JOSEPH RAHEEM WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joseph Raheem Williams appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6).1 Appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436; People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo).) On May 18, 2023, we notified defendant that (1) counsel had filed a brief indicating that no arguable issues had been identified by counsel; (2) as a case arising from an order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to an independent review of the record; and (3) in accordance with the procedures set forth

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Defendant originally filed his petition under former section 1170.95. Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 without substantive change. (See Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) We refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

1

in Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant that if we did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, we may dismiss the appeal as abandoned. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Having considered it, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND After defendant shot and killed a man during a dispute in front of a hotel (People v. Williams (May 29, 2014, C068754) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams), a jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) as a lesser included offense to second degree murder and found true an allegation that he intentionally and personally used a firearm during the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found defendant guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and defendant admitted a prior prison term enhancement allegation (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 22 years in state prison. This court affirmed the judgment. (Williams, supra, C068754.) In June 2022, defendant petitioned for resentencing under section 1172.6 and requested the appointment of counsel. The petition alleged that a complaint, information, or indictment had been filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or other theory under which malice was imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime; that he was convicted of manslaughter following a trial at which he could have been convicted of murder; and that he could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing from the parties, and held a hearing. The People argued defendant failed to make a sufficient prima facie showing because the record of conviction, including the verdicts and jury instructions, established