People v. Williams CA2/6 ( 2023 )

Filed 12/7/23 P. v. Williams CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B326471
(Super. Ct. No. VA071074)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
WALTER WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
Walter Williams appeals the trial court’s post-judgment
order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code
section 1172.6.1 We affirm.
In 2003, a jury convicted appellant of attempted murder
(count one; §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly
weapon (count two; § 245, subd. (b)) for shooting a restaurant
employee in Norwalk. The jury found true allegations that
Williams personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless
otherwise noted.
injury. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c) & (d), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The trial
court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison on count one. It
stayed his sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654.
Williams filed a petition for resentencing in March of 2022.
(Former § 1170.95, now § 1172.6). The court appointed an
attorney to represent him and held a hearing. It found Williams
ineligible for resentencing because he was convicted of attempted
murder as the actual shooter of the victim, not as a participant
found guilty under the now-invalid theory of natural and
probable consequences. Williams appealed. We appointed
counsel to represent him. Counsel filed a brief raising no issues
in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216(Delgadillo) and requested we independently review the record
for error. We notified Williams of his right to submit any
contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
Williams filed a partially completed form petition for writ
of habeas corpus that cited various cases, statutes, and bills as
grounds for resentencing, including People v. Griffin (2022) 85
Cal.App.5th 329, sections 1170, 1172.1, 1172.6, and Senate Bill
620’s amendments to sections 12022.5 and 12022.53. He requests
the court resentence him for assault with a deadly weapon rather
than murder in what appears to be an argument based on section
654.2 Williams separately submitted a copy of a “Certificate of
Release or Discharge From Active Duty” indicating he received
an “Entry Level Separation” from the United States Navy based
on “other physical/mental condition – personality disorder” in
2 Williams states as follows on page 3 of the petition:
“I
was charged with attempted murder [and] assault with a [deadly]
weapon. [¶] Only one charge appl[ies]. I should be resentence[d]
for assault only. It was only one crime. Not two.”
2
May of 1984, along with a completed form petition for
resentencing based on health conditions due to military service
under section 1170.91, subdivision (b).3 We elected to treat these
materials as supplemental briefing submitted in response to our
Delgadillo notice. As such, we are “required to evaluate the
specific arguments presented in that brief and . . . issue a written
opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
The trial court correctly found that Williams is not eligible
for resentencing under section 1172.6. The record confirms he
was the sole participant in the charged crime. He shot a
restaurant worker with a handgun as the victim was handing
him a bag of food through a drive-thru window. (See People v.
Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 967 [section 1172.6 enacted “‘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’”].) Prosecutors did not obtain
(or seek) Williams’ conviction for attempted murder under the
natural and probable causes doctrine – a threshold requirement
for resentencing under the statute. (See § 1172.6, subd. (a) [“A
person convicted of . . . attempted murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine . . . may file a petition with the
court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s . . .
attempted murder . . . conviction vacated and to be resentenced
on any remaining counts”].)
Williams did not seek relief under sections 654, 1170,
1172.1, or Senate Bill 620 in his original petition. These issues
3 Williams also requests we appoint him new counsel. We
deny the request.
3
are beyond the scope of this appeal. Even if we were to consider
them, he articulates no grounds for relief.
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
4
Joseph R. Porras, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
5