People v. Williams CA1/4

Filed 12/13/23 P. v. Williams CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166888 v. KRISTOFER MICHAEL (Solano County Super. Ct. WILLIAMS, No. FCR341032) Defendant and Appellant.

Kristofer Michael Williams was convicted by a jury of, among other offenses, the murder of Jonathan Russell. His conviction was affirmed by this court in August 2023. (People v. Williams (Aug. 17, 2023, A165264 [nonpub. opn.]).)1 The present appeal was filed from the trial court’s restitution order, which awarded (1) $3,000 to Russell’s stepmother for funeral expenses; (2) $354,000 to the mother of Russell’s daughter for her loss of economic and child support plus nearly $40,000 in other expenses; and (3) approximately $45,000 to the mother of Russell’s son, for her loss of child support and various other economic losses, including money spent on security cameras and a Ring camera doorbell device.

1 We take judicial notice of the record on appeal filed in this court in the

prior appeal, as well as of this court’s unpublished opinion. (Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

Williams’s appointed appellate counsel filed a no-issues brief asking this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. As part of our review, we solicited supplemental briefing from the parties on whether substantial evidence supports a finding that the $470.30 for increased home security measures was incurred “as a result of the defendant’s conduct” within the meaning of Penal Code2 section 1202.4, subdivision (f) and was “related to” defendant’s crime within the meaning of section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J). Having now considered that briefing, we affirm the restitution order.3 BACKGROUND Williams was convicted of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), and three other felony charges. At trial, evidence established that Williams entered the home of the 9-year-old kidnapping victim, stabbed her father, and carried the child out of the house. Once outside, Williams was confronted by the child’s “uncle,” Russell, whom Williams stabbed before running away. Russell subsequently died from his injury. In his defense, Williams testified that before the night of the incident, he had heard rumors that the child was being molested by her dad and her “uncle.” He testified