Opinion
D081364
06-15-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CEDRIC DALE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Cedric Dale Williams, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Super. Ct. No. FSB1100344 of San Bernardino County, Kyle S. Brodie, Judge.
Cedric Dale Williams, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, J.
In 2012, a jury convicted Cedric Dale Williams of robbery (Pen. Code,§ 211; count 1); sexual penetration with a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); count 2); and attempted murder (§§ 187 &664; count 3). The jury also found Williams was armed with a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that he inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Williams was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life for the use of the firearm plus 29 years and four months for the various offenses.
In 2022, Williams filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court appointed counsel reviewed the record of conviction and held a hearing. The court found the record demonstrated Williams was the actual perpetrator (the person who did the shooting) and the jury was not instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of liability. The court found Williams was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause.
Williams filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Williams of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a supplemental brief. We will discuss his brief later in this opinion.
This appeal does not raise factual issues concerning the offenses for which Williams was convicted. Accordingly, we will omit a summary of the facts of those offenses.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks us to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We grant the request and have conducted an independent review of the record.
To assist the court in reviewing the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967)386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in summarily denying the petition for resentencing.
In his supplemental brief, Williams does not deny he was the actual perpetrator of the attempted murder. Somewhat consistently with his defense at trial, Williams claimed he did not act with implied malice. His defense was self-defense at trial. He does not dispute the facts of the shooting and the injuries it caused. Nor, does Williams argue that the jury was not instructed on liability based on the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
Williams does complain at length about the gang enhancement in this case. However, his discussion does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the order denying his petition for resentencing.
We have independently reviewed the record consistent with Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Williams on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Williams's petition for resentencing is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., KELETY, J.