People v. Williams CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/16/24 P. v. Williams CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083637
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD242869)
JOHN WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
Daniel Rogers and Elizabeth M. Kuchar, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2023, John Williams, who is serving an aggregate prison term of
more than 38 years, filed a petition under Penal Code section 1170.18 to
reduce his conviction for receiving stolen property worth less than $950, an
offense Proposition 47 reclassified as a misdemeanor. The offense—charged
as count 5—was one of multiple felonies a jury found he committed in 2013.
The trial court approved Williams’ petition but neither appointed counsel nor
set a resentencing hearing as he requested. Williams argues he was entitled
to both these measures. The People concede error. Resolving this matter by
memorandum opinion (see People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we
accept the People’s concession and affirm the trial court’s reclassification of
the offense. Yet we remand for the trial court to vacate Williams’ sentence,
appoint counsel to represent Williams, and conduct a full resentencing
hearing.
A section 1170.18 petition allows a petitioner to request a resentencing
hearing on a felony that would have been a misdemeanor under current law.
(§ 1170.18, subd. (a).) The trial court must determine if the petitioner meets
the criteria for a misdemeanor reduction; if so, the court shall, subject to an
exception not relevant here, recall the felony sentence and resentence the
petitioner to a misdemeanor. (Id., subd. (b).) We review de novo whether
section 1170.18 requires the trial court to schedule a full resentencing
hearing with appointment of counsel upon granting the petition. (People v.
Simms (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 987, 994.)
Here, the trial court ruled on Williams’ petition using a standard form.
It marked the box granting Williams’ petition and reducing his conviction for
receiving stolen property (count 5) from a felony to a misdemeanor. Although
the People agreed Williams was “entitled to resentencing” as to count 5, the
court did not mark the box to set a resentencing hearing.
As the People concede, this was error. Our Supreme Court has stated
that, “when part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for
2
resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial
court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed
circumstances.’” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893.) “By correcting
one part of the sentence, the trial court is resentencing the defendant and, in
so doing, is not only permitted, but also obligated to look at the facts and the
law in effect at the time of that resentencing, including ‘“any pertinent
circumstances which have arisen since the prior sentence was imposed”’ and
whether they render a different part of the sentence legally incorrect.”
(People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 205, quoting Buycks, 5 Cal.5th
at p. 893.) And a section 1170.18(a) petitioner who is found eligible for
resentencing “is entitled to the assistance of counsel at resentencing in every
case involving a judgment of conviction of more than one felony such that the
court has discretion to restructure the sentence on all counts.” (People v.
Rouse (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 292, 301.)
Under the above cases, Williams was entitled to a full resentencing
because one of his multiple felony convictions was reduced to a misdemeanor.
As Williams was originally sentenced in 2013, he is entitled to the benefit of
sentencing reforms enacted over the past decade. (Walker, 67 Cal.App.5th at
pp. 205-206.) Moreover, due process requires Williams to be offered
representation by counsel at this “‘critical stage’” of the proceedings. (Rouse,
245 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) Upon granting Williams’ request for a reduction
from a felony to a misdemeanor, the trial court neither appointed counsel to
represent Williams nor scheduled a full resentencing hearing. As it was
3
obligated to do so, we remand for the trial court to remedy these
deficiencies.1
DISPOSITION
We affirm the trial court’s order granting the reduction of count 5
(receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) to a misdemeanor but remand for
the trial court to vacate Williams’ sentence, appoint counsel to represent him,
and conduct a full resentencing hearing consistent with this opinion. Upon
resentencing, the trial court is directed to prepare and forward an amended
abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
DO, J.
1 The People moved for judicial notice of the amended felony abstract of
judgment postdating the appeal. Yet, as neither the parties nor this opinion
rely substantively on the document, we deny the motion. (See People ex rel.
Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 415, 422, fn. 2.)
4