People v. Williamson CA1/1

Filed 9/12/23 P. v. Williamson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167671 v. CHARLES LEE WILLIAMSON, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR962521) Defendant and Appellant.

Based on his sexual abuse of his daughter, defendant Charles Lee Williamson pleaded no contest to a felony count of forcible lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years old. He also admitted a prior strike but reserved the right to seek its dismissal under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The trial court denied Williamson’s Romero motion and sentenced him to 16 years in prison. Williamson’s only claim on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his Romero motion. We reject this claim and affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2022, after Williamson waived his right to a preliminary hearing, the Lake County District Attorney filed an information charging him with seven felony counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child

1

10 years of age or younger and one felony count of forcible lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years old.1 The charges were based on acts against Williamson’s teenage daughter, U.W., starting when she was around four years old. The information also alleged that Williamson had a 1998 conviction for first degree burglary, a serious felony.2 (See § 1192.7, subd. (c)(18).) Under a plea agreement, Williamson pleaded no contest to the count of forcible lewd or lascivious acts for a stipulated midterm sentence of eight years and admitted the prior strike, and the remaining charges were dismissed. He stipulated to the following factual basis for the plea: “[O]n or about June 17th, year 2019, through January 3rd, 2020, within the County of Lake, [he] did touch victim U.W. who was 13 years old at the time . . . on her genitalia for his sexual desires. He used force by holding her down, covering her mouth to keep her from yelling.” As part of the plea agreement, Williamson was allowed to bring a Romero motion. In the motion, Williamson gave several reasons that the prior strike should be dismissed. The conviction was almost 25 years old, and it was “for a different crime of a different class” than the instant one. Although he admitted that he “ha[d] not led a crime[-] or incarceration[-]free life in those intervening years,” he emphasized his low risk of reoffending, as