From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Jan 28, 2020
B298205 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)

Opinion

B298205

01-28-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE ALI WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Lori A. Quick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA102500) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teri Schwartz, Judge. Affirmed. Lori A. Quick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for respondent.

____________________

Defendant Willie Ali Williams appeals from an order denying his petition for dismissal of the action against him in the interests of justice pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4a. We agree with the trial court that this provision does not apply to Williams and therefore affirm the order.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

DISCUSSION

On December 14, 2017, officers of the Pasadena Police Department responded to a call reporting a burglary at a residence. One of the two occupants recounted that a man had entered the residence and asked her for "Jesse." She said she did not know anyone by that name. The man then left. After he left, the other resident discovered that her cell phone was missing. The police traced the phone's location and found it in Williams's possession.

On May 29, 2018, the People charged Williams by information with two counts of first degree residential burglary (§ 459). The information alleged that the offenses constituted serious (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)) and violent (§ 667.5, subd. (c)) felonies, for which probation should not be granted (§ 462, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that Williams had suffered two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), constituting strikes within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12), and had served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

Williams pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations. On September 14, 2018, pursuant to a plea bargain, Williams entered a no contest plea to one count of residential burglary and admitted the allegation that a person was present. The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of six years in state prison. It imposed a restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and stayed a parole revocation fine of $300 (§ 1202.45), and imposed a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court dismissed the second residential burglary count and all remaining allegations.

On April 10, 2019, Williams filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to section 1203.4a. He claimed his case should be dismissed in the interest of justice, explaining: "I took a plea deal agreement for [section] 459 1st degree burglary but there was no evidence against me in my case. [T]here was no fingerprints, no positive identification from witnesses, no positive identification from the accuser(s) etc."

The trial court denied the petition on April 19, 2019, finding Williams was ineligible for relief because he was sentenced to state prison. Williams timely appealed.

Section 1203.4a applies to defendants who have served sentences for misdemeanors or infractions. --------

We appointed counsel to represent Williams on this appeal. After review of the record, Williams's counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On October 9, 2019, we sent a letter to Williams, advising him that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. We received no response.

We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable legal issues exist and that Williams's counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. By virtue of counsel's compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, we are satisfied that Williams received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; accord, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JOHNSON, J. We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

BENDIX, J.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Jan 28, 2020
B298205 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE ALI WILLIAMS, Defendant…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

Date published: Jan 28, 2020

Citations

B298205 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2020)