People v. Williams CA2/8 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/28/24 P. v. Williams CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B333593
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA124662-01)
v.
MELVIN WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer Peabody, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
——————————
Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216(Delgadillo), we review this appeal of an order denying
defendant’s petition for resentencing brought under Penal Code1
section 1172.6. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On October 9, 2013, the People filed a third amended
Information charging defendant Melvin Williams with infliction
of corporal injury on Carliss Bell, assault on Bell by means likely
to produce great bodily injury, and criminal threats to Bell in
violation of sections 273.5, subdivision (a), 245, subdivision(a)(4),
and 422, subdivision (a). The third amended Information also
charged Williams with the attempted willful, deliberate, and
premeditated murders of Bell and Darrell Williams, possession of
a firearm by a felon, contempt of court, first degree residential
burglary, and assaults on Bell and Williams with a firearm, in
violation of sections 644/187, subdivision (a), 29800, subdivision
(a)(1), 166, subdivision (c)(1), 459, and 245, subdivision (b). Other
firearm and serious and violent felony enhancements were also
alleged.
The jury found Williams guilty of all counts, found the
attempted murders were premeditated, willful and deliberate,
and found true the firearm enhancement that he personally used
a shotgun during the commission of the attempted murders. The
jury was unable to agree on whether Williams intentionally
discharged the firearm during commission of the attempted
murders. In a bifurcated proceeding the trial court found that
Williams had suffered a prior strike. The trial court sentenced
Williams to 48 years to life plus 8 years. On May 8, 2015, this
1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
court affirmed the conviction and sentence. (People v. Williams
(May 8, 2015, B252994) [nonpub. opn.].)
On April 29, 2019, Williams filed a petition for
resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95). On
July 19, 2019, the trial court denied the petition because
Williams had not been convicted of murder and “[section] 1170.95
requires petitioner to have committed murder.” On March 23,
2022, this court reversed the order denying the petition for
resentencing and ordered the trial court to appoint counsel and
conduct further proceedings. The trial court appointed counsel to
represent Williams on remand. The People opposed the petition,
contending that the jury was not instructed on aiding and
abetting, felony murder, or the natural or probable consequences
theory and so when the jury found appellant guilty of attempted
premeditated murder, it found he personally harbored express
malice. In support of its opposition, the People filed, among other
documents, the instructions provided to the jury.
On August 22, 2023, the trial court denied the petition:
“There’s no natural and probable consequences [NPC] or aiding
and abetting, there’s nothing to show that there was any imputed
malice. So it doesn’t appear that he’s even eligible for
resentencing. I do have the jury instructions, and there’s nothing
in the jury instructions to show that the jury was instructed on
NPC or aiding and abetting.” Williams timely appealed.
For context only, we include the facts of the case: on two
separate occasions, Williams engaged in violence, first against his
cohabitant Bell and then against Bell and her brother Darrell
Williams some months later. During the latter event,
defendant’s shotgun went off while the victims were struggling
with him. (People v. Williams, supra, B252994.)
3
On January 18, 2024, we appointed counsel to represent
Williams on appeal. On March 26, 2024, counsel filed a no issue
brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo. Counsel advised us
appellant was told he may file his own supplemental brief within
30 days. Counsel sent Williams transcripts of the record on
appeal as well as a copy of the brief.
On March 26, 2024, this court sent Williams notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
him he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief
or letter stating any issues he believes we should consider. We
also advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the
appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
On April 30, 2024 we received Williams’s supplemental
brief, in which he raises four contentions: 1) his jury trial was
infected with “bias and structural error” due to “known Judicial
Corruption, Misconduct, Fraud on the Court, Conspiratorial
Corruption Judicial Misconduct, Theft, Embezzlement” based on
actions of the former mayor of Compton, Omar Bradley; 2) the
trial court violated his right to be present at a critical stage of the
proceedings when, in his absence, the trial court considered and
denied Williams’s prior request to be resentenced because his
prior convictions were improperly used against him; 3) the trial
court denied his December 14, 2014 request for postconviction
discovery of Pitchess material on the police officers who
investigated his case; 4) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a supplemental brief or petition for rehearing requesting a
remand for sentencing based on changes in the law and “most
importantly because appellant suffered Traumatic Brain Injuries
from a motor vehicle accident just prior to his incarceration
4
which directly impacted appellant’s behavior and was a
contributing factor(s) to the commission of offenses(s).”
DISCUSSION
Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) eliminated the
natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for
liability for murder (and later, attempted murder). It also limited
the scope of the felony murder rule. (People v. Lewis (2021)
11 Cal.5th 952, 957) (Lewis).) Petitions for resentencing carry
out the intent of Senate Bill No. 1437, which was “to ensure that
murder liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual
killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major
participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless
indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f);
Lewis, at p. 967.) Petitions under section 1172.6 address
convictions where a defendant was not the shooter but was held
vicariously liable on one of several theories of liability identified
in the statute. If the record establishes ineligibility for
resentencing as a matter of law, the petition has been properly
denied. (Lewis, at pp. 970–972.) However, the petition and
record must establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible
for relief. (People v. Lopez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 1,14 [a
“petitioner is ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law if the
record of conviction conclusively establishes, with no factfinding,
weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations, that . . . the
petitioner was the actual killer.”].) (Ibid.) When a trial court
denies a section 1172.6 petition based on the failure to make a
prima facie case for relief, our review is de novo. (Ibid.)
After appointment of counsel, the trial court assesses when
a prima facie case for relief has been made. The prima facie
inquiry is limited. (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.) In
5
assessing whether a defendant has made a prima facie case for
relief pursuant to section 1172.6, ruling on a resentencing
petition, the trial court is entitled to review the record of
conviction, which includes the jury summations, jury
instructions, verdict forms, and prior appellate opinions. (Lewis,
at pp. 971–972.) However, Lewis cautions that although
appellate opinions are generally considered to be part of the
record of conviction, the prima facie bar was intentionally set
very low; a trial court should not engage in “ ‘factfinding
involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.’ ”
(Id. at p. 972.)
The jury’s verdict and jury instructions establish that
Williams was prosecuted and convicted as the actual perpetrator
of the attempted murders. All of Williams’s contentions
challenge misconduct or error which allegedly occurred at his
trial or as a result of post-trial motions for resentencing on
grounds other than those set out in section 1437. An appeal from
a post-judgment petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is
not a vehicle to raise unrelated claims of error allegedly
committed by the trial court; it is not another opportunity to
challenge the original judgment on other grounds. (People v.
Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [the mere filing of a
section 1172.6 petition does not afford the petitioner a new
opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency
of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings]; People v. Allison
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 449, 461 [a petition for resentencing does
not provide a do-over on factual disputes that have already been
resolved], disapproved on another ground in People v. Strong
(2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 718, fn. 3.)
6
To carry his burden, Williams must allege facts which, if
true, would demonstrate that he could not presently be convicted
of attempted murder “because of changes to Section 188 or 189
made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
Williams’s contentions alleging error by the trial court and trial
counsel do not satisfy this requirement and are properly rejected.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
GRIMES, J.
WILEY, J.
7