From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 26, 2008
No. B203598 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. B203598, B185010 California Court of Appeal, Second District, First Division September 26, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. VA 077055, John A. Torribio, Judge.

Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Sarah J. Farhat, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

ROTHSCHILD, J.

Defendant Michael Williams appeals from his conviction of second degree murder with special allegations of intentional use of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death. He contends that the trial court erred by failing to strike sentence enhancements for true findings of firearm use pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c) after imposing an enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d). (All undesignated code section references are to the Penal Code; all undesignated code subdivision references are to section 12022.53.) We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

Williams attended a party on the night of May 25, 2003. Between 3:00 and 4:00 a.m. the next morning, at the location of the party, witnesses heard a conversation between defendant and Herman Brown, a good friend of Williams’. The two men became involved in an argument after Williams refused Brown a “hit” from Williams’ cigarette or joint. The altercation escalated into a fistfight that produced only minor injuries, if any. Then both men hugged, shook hands, and went their separate ways. Later, at approximately 4:30 a.m., when Brown was at home with his girlfriend, Williams knocked at the door. He was alone. Brown went outside to talk with him. Brown’s girlfriend then heard a gunshot, ran to the door and opened it, and saw Williams shoot Brown as he tried to escape into the house. Brown later died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. Williams was tried by jury for murder. He presented no evidence on his behalf. The jury found him guilty of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found to be true special allegations of personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury and death pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). The court sentenced Williams to 15 years to life for second degree murder and, consecutively, 25 years to life for the firearm use pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The court did not impose, stay, or strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (b) and (c).

In an earlier appeal, we affirmed Williams’ conviction but reversed the trial court’s denial of his motion to discharge his retained counsel before seeking a new trial. (People v. Williams (Sep. 7, 2006, B185010) [nonpub. opn.].) Thereafter, the court appointed for Williams a new counsel who could not, however, identify any grounds upon which to file a motion for a new trial. The court reinstated the previously imposed sentence. Williams timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Williams contends that because the court imposed a sentence enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d) (25 years to life), it was required to strike any lesser sentence enhancements pursuant to subdivisions (b) (10 years) and (c) (20 years). We disagree.

Williams’ argument was based upon lingering uncertainty, at the time he filed his brief, as to how our Supreme Court would decide the issue of lesser sentence enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53 in the then-pending case of People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118. Now the Court has spoken, and the issue no longer is in doubt. “[S]ection 12022.53 requires that, after a trial court imposes punishment for the section 12022.53 firearm enhancement with the longest term of imprisonment, the remaining section 12022.53 firearm enhancements and any section 12022.5 firearm enhancements that were found true for the same crime must be imposed and then stayed.” (Id. at p. 1130.)

DISPOSITION

The case is remanded for the trial court to impose and stay a consecutive term of 10 years pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b) and a consecutive term of 20 years pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (c). In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy thereof to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur: MALLANO, P. J., HASTINGS, J.

Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

People v. Williams

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Sep 26, 2008
No. B203598 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Williams

Case Details

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

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Sep 26, 2008

Citations

No. B203598 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2008)