People v. Williams CA6

Filed 10/6/23 P. v. Williams CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050287 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1239917)

v.

MARTEL CHARROD WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Martel Charrod Williams appeals from a trial court order denying the recommendation of the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)1 (hereafter section 1170(d)(1)) and resentence him. Williams contends that, under section 1172.1 (section 1170(d)(1) as amended and renumbered),2 the trial court erred by

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Effective January 1, 2022, pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1540), the Legislature amended section 1170(d)(1) to redesignate it as section 1170.03 and to clarify “the Legislature’s intent regarding procedural requirements and the provision’s application.” (People v. McMurray (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1035, 1038 (McMurray); Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1(i) & 3.) The Legislature later renumbered section 1170.03 to section 1172.1, with no change to the text of the statute. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9, eff. June 30, 2022.) We refer to the current version of the provision as section 1172.1, and we cite “former section 1170(d)(1)” to refer to the provision as it read prior to the effective date of Assembly Bill 1540.

not (1) granting him a hearing on the recommendation of the Secretary of the CDCR (Secretary), (2) appointing counsel to represent him, and (3) recognizing the presumption in favor of recall and resentencing. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court’s order must be reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a hearing. We agree and order the matter remanded for reconsideration under section 1172.1. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Williams pleaded no contest to seven counts of robbery (§ 211) and two counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). Williams admitted the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53) and gang enhancement (§ 186.22) allegations attached to the robbery counts, and the gang enhancement allegations attached to the false imprisonment counts. The trial court sentenced Williams to 17 years, 4 months in prison. Of those 17 years, 4 months, the majority of Williams’s sentence (13 years, 4 months) was imposed on the firearm enhancements attendant to the robbery counts. On April 12, 2021, the Secretary filed a letter with the trial court pursuant to former section 1170(d)(1) recommending recall of Williams’s sentence and resentencing because a January 1, 2018 amendment to section 12022.53, subdivision (h) revised the sentencing court’s obligation to impose firearm enhancements in connection with certain felonies. The amendment empowered courts to use their “discretion to strike or dismiss a personal use firearm enhancement at sentencing or resentencing . . . in the interest of justice.” The Secretary attached various documents to the letter, including documents setting forth Williams’s participation in work assignments, education, and self-help activities, as well as his prison disciplinary record. On May 14, 2021, without holding a hearing on the matter, the trial court issued an order in which it declined to recall Williams’s sentence, stating “The sentencing court in this matter imposed a sentence that served the interests of justice. There is no basis presented to this court at this time to disturb those now final sentencing orders.” This order was served on the district attorney, the public defender, and the Secretary, but not 2