Opinion
A159611
08-06-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 152719)
Willie Williams appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for resentencing filed pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 on the basis that he could not be convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 as amended effective January 1, 2019 (SB 1437). His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We conclude there are no issues requiring further review and affirm.
Further references to statutes are to the Penal Code. --------
BACKGROUND
Williams was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder with a special circumstance that the murder was committed while Williams was engaged in the commission of a robbery. This court affirmed the conviction in 2012.
In January 2019, Williams filed a petition under newly enacted section 1170.95, which allows certain offenders convicted of felony murder to have their murder convictions vacated and to be resentenced. The petition alleged Williams was convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule. The petition also alleged that Williams could no longer be convicted of first-degree murder because he was not the actual killer, he did not assist the killer in commission of the murder with an intent to kill, he was not a major participant in the killing and did not act with reckless indifference to human life.
The court issued a briefing order directing the district attorney to file a response to the petition. After the court received the district attorney's response and a reply from Williams's appointed counsel, the court set the petition for a hearing. Both parties' responses referred the court to trial testimony they believed would help describe the role Williams played in the murder. Counsel agreed at the hearing that the court could rely upon and accept their proffers of the content of testimony as described in their written material filed with the court.
The court made clear that it was not going to reconsider whether Williams participated in a robbery. The jury's verdict was affirmed on appeal, and section 1170.95 limits the court's consideration to circumstances surrounding the homicide. The court next reviewed the testimony it believed demonstrated that Williams was a major participant in the crime who acted with reckless indifference to human life.
Williams and his co-defendant were clearly the aggressors. But Williams was in charge and directed the actions of the actual killer. Once the victim was stabbed, Williams demonstrated particular cruelty when he minimized the victim's injuries, ridiculed him, made him stand up and rejected suggestions to call an ambulance.
Based upon its review of the testimony, the court determined that in a trial the prosecution would show beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams aided and abetted the murder with the intent to kill, was a major participant in the robbery and demonstrated a cruelty and indifference to human life "that permeated the entire event." The petition was denied.
DISCUSSION
Williams's counsel has represented that he advised Williams of his intention to file a Wende brief in this case and of Williams's right to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. This court received two documents from Williams. On June 30, 2020, Williams sent the court a document entitled "Suppressant New Evidence." On July 6, 2020, he sent a motion for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Williams's Suppressant New Evidence is essentially a petition for habeas corpus relief setting forth grounds to vacate or question his conviction on the basis of newly discovered evidence. There is no showing that these claims were first presented to the trial court. The petition is denied without prejudice. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692.)
His motion for ineffective assistance of counsel seeks to remove appointed appellate counsel for failing to argue that Williams was not a major participant in the crimes involved in this case. The trial court considered this issue, and based on the testimony from Williams' trial, determined that he was a major participant. To prevail on a claim of ineffective appellate counsel, a defendant must show counsel was unreasonable and that he suffered prejudice as a result. (In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 488.) Williams can show neither. Williams has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved.
Our full review of the record reveals no issue that requires further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The denial of the petition for resentencing is affirmed.
/s/_________
Siggins, P.J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Fujisaki, J. /s/_________
Petrou, J.