People v. Williams CA3

Filed 8/14/23 P. v. Williams CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
THE PEOPLE, C096257
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00241)
v.
MICHAEL LEON WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
A jury found defendant Michael Leon Williams guilty of murder, receipt of stolen
property, assault with a deadly weapon, and found true various enhancements for crimes
he committed when he was 16 years old. The criminal court sentenced defendant to 25
years to life on the murder, and an unauthorized 15-years-to-life term on the firearms
enhancement. On direct appeal, this court conditionally reversed his conviction and
remanded the matter to the juvenile court1 with instructions to conduct a transfer hearing
1 We will refer to the criminal court or a court of criminal jurisdiction to mean the court
system for adults and juveniles who are tried as adults and to distinguish that system from
the juvenile court system, where most juvenile matters are handled.
1
pursuant to Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition
57). (See People v. Williams et al. (June 25, 2019, C080504) [nonpub. opn.] (Williams).)
We further directed the criminal court to impose the correct sentence on the firearms
enhancement if the case were transferred back to the criminal court. On remand and
transfer, rather than reinstating the 50-years-to-life sentence as directed, the criminal
court modified the sentence by changing a three-year concurrent term to a consecutive
term. Defendant appealed.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Legislature amended Welfare and
Institutions Code, section 707 via Assembly Bill No. 2361 (Reg. Sess. 2021-2022)
(Assembly Bill 2361) (Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1). Defendant seeks a second conditional
reversal arguing the juvenile court must apply this new law’s higher burden of proof.
The People concede a conditional reversal is appropriate. Defendant also argues the
criminal court exceeded the scope of the prior remand order when it improperly added the
three-year-consecutive term. Once again, the People agree this is error.
We shall conditionally reverse the judgment and remand to the juvenile court for
an amenability hearing in compliance with the new law. If the juvenile court transfers the
cause to the criminal court, we shall further order the criminal court to modify the
consecutive sentence so that it is concurrent with the indeterminate term for murder.
I. BACKGROUND
A detailed recitation of the underlying facts of defendant’s crimes is unnecessary
for this appeal.2 It suffices to say that, in the first incident, defendant and his
codefendants committed a carjacking, pistol-whipped the victim, and stole his jewelry.
In the second incident, defendant and his codefendants stole clothing from a store, and
while trying to escape, defendant ran over the loss prevention employee. In the third
2 We take the general description of the facts from the probation report.
2
incident, after a car chase that started with the exchange of derogatory gang epithets,
defendant shot and killed a rival gang member.
Among other charges (which are not relevant here), the first amended information
charged defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)—count six),3 possession of a
stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)—count four), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1)—count five). The information further alleged enhancements for the use of a
firearm (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b)), intentional discharge of a firearm
(§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or
death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), and gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
In 2015, the jury found defendant guilty on all counts and found all enhancements
related to him as true. For the murder and the intentional discharge of a firearm, the
criminal court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life, plus 15 years to life to run
concurrently with the following determinate terms:4 on count five, assault with a deadly
weapon, the criminal court further sentenced defendant to the middle term of three years
plus five years for the gang enhancement; and a concurrent two-year term on count four,
possession of a stolen vehicle.
In 2015, defendant appealed raising issues related to the exclusion of testimony
and the gang enhancement, and contending Proposition 57 and its 2018 amendment
required us to conditionally reverse his case and remand it for a juvenile fitness hearing.
In 2019, we conditionally reversed the matter and remanded it for a transfer hearing. We
further reversed the gang enhancement due to insufficient evidence. Finally, we
3 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
4 The criminal court reduced the term from 25 years to life because it believed a 50-years
to-life term would be an impermissible de facto life without parole sentence for a
juvenile.
3
concluded the 15-years-to-life sentence for intentional discharge of a firearm
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) was unauthorized.
Our disposition stated: “If, at the transfer hearing, the juvenile court determines it
would have transferred [defendant] to a court of criminal jurisdiction, then the judgement
and sentence for [defendant ] shall be reinstated as of that date.” We further directed the
criminal court “to modify the 15 years to life term for the section 12022.53, subdivision
(d) enhancement to 25 years to life, and to determine whether to exercise its discretion to
strike any or all of the section 12022.53 enhancements.” (Williams, supra, C080504.)
The juvenile court held a hearing in February 2022 and granted the motion to
transfer the case to criminal court. At the subsequent sentencing hearing in March 2022,
the criminal court (who was also the original trial judge) vacated the sentence for the
gang enhancement, reimposed the 25-years-to-life sentence for murder, and imposed the
correct 25-years-to-life sentence for the intentional discharge of the firearm. It declined
to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements.
The criminal court also reimposed the sentences for assault (count five) of three
years and two years for receiving the stolen car (count four) with count four to be served
concurrently with count five. However, unlike defendant’s original sentence, the court
imposed the determinate three-year sentence consecutive to the indeterminate terms.
Defendant timely appealed from the criminal court’s sentencing order. We
granted defendant’s motion to construe that appeal as timely filed from the juvenile court
transfer order under the constructive filing doctrine.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Proposition 57
Defendant argues, and the People agree, we should again conditionally reverse and
remand the case back to the juvenile court to apply the higher standard of proof set forth
in Assembly Bill 2361 for Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. We concur.
4
Enacted by voters in November 2016, “Proposition 57 prohibits prosecutors from
charging juveniles with crimes directly in adult court. Instead, they must commence the
action in juvenile court. If the prosecution wishes to try the juvenile as an adult, the
juvenile court must conduct . . . a ‘transfer hearing’ to determine whether the matter
should remain in juvenile court or be transferred to adult court. Only if the juvenile court
transfers the matter to adult court can the juvenile be tried and sentenced as an adult.”
(People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303, citing Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 707, subd. (a).) In Lara, our Supreme Court concluded the Proposition should be
applied retroactively to any cases that are not yet final pursuant to the rationale of In re
Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, because this new law ameliorated the possible punishment
for juveniles. (Lara, supra, at p. 308.)
At the time of defendant’s transfer hearing in January 2022, “the governing law
and the corresponding Rule of Court required the petitioner to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that ‘the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal
jurisdiction.’ (Former [Welf. & Inst. Code,] § 707, subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats.
2018, ch. 1012, § 1; [Cal. Rules of Court,] rule 5.770(a).) Effective January 1, 2023, the
Legislature amended [Welfare and Institution Code] section 707, adding the following
language: ‘In order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal
jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not
amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.’ ([Welf. &
Inst. Code,] § 707, subd. (a)(3), as amended by Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1.) This changed
the finding a juvenile court must make before ordering a transfer in two ways: (1) raising
the standard of proof and (2) requiring a new specific finding regarding amenability to
rehabilitation.” (In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284, fn. omitted.) A different
panel of this court recently concluded the recent amendment should be applied
retroactively to nonfinal judgments because it, too, makes it more difficult to transfer
5
juveniles from juvenile court to criminal court, and thus similarly reduces the possible
punishment for juveniles. (Id. at p. 1289.)
Defendant’s case remains not yet final, due to his first appeal, the remand, and this
subsequent appeal from the changes the criminal court made to his sentence. As the
People concede, the juvenile court made its initial transfer order based on the five
relevant transfer criteria and explained that it found it should grant the motion to transfer
based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Because this burden of proof is lower than
the new clear and convincing evidence standard, the People agree the proper remedy is to
order a conditional reversal and remand for a new transfer hearing applying the new
heightened standard.
We concur and will conditionally reverse and remand this case for an additional
transfer hearing under the new standards. The juvenile court, having reviewed all of the
submissions, the probation report, and having heard testimony that is not part of the
record before us, remains in the best position to determine in the first instance whether
the findings it made pursuant to the preponderance of evidence standard withstand the
higher proof standard and the amenability focus of Assembly Bill 2631’s amendments to
the law. (See People v. McPartland (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 569, 575 [trial court is in the
best position to evaluate the evidence utilizing the proper legal standard in a recusal
motion].) If the juvenile court determines it would have transferred the matter to a court
of criminal jurisdiction, then the matter shall be transferred to the criminal court and
defendant’s conviction and sentence (as modified by this decision, post) shall be
reinstated. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707.1, subd. (a).) Alternatively, if the juvenile court
determines it would not have transferred the case, the juvenile court shall treat
defendant’s conviction as a juvenile adjudication and proceed accordingly. We express
no opinion on the ultimate resolution of this question.
6
B. Added Consecutive Sentence
Defendant also argues the criminal court erred in changing defendant’s concurrent
sentence to a consecutive sentence after our initial conditional reversal and remand of the
case. The People agree. We concur.
“[W]hen an appellate court remands a matter with directions governing the
proceedings on remand, ‘ “ ‘those directions are binding on the trial court and must be
followed. Any material variance from the directions is unauthorized and void.’ ” ’ ”
(People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55, 64.) A conditional reversal does not
disturb the verdict or vacate the original sentence. (Andrew M. v. Superior Court (2020)
43 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1126.)
Here, in addition to the conditional reversal, our remittitur reversed the sentence
on the gang enhancement and required the criminal court to modify the 15-years-to-life
term for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement. While the criminal court
followed our direction on the firearm enhancement, it exceeded the scope of that
remittitur when it imposed the determinate three-year term for assault (§ 245, subd.
(a)(1)) and the two-year-concurrent sentence for receiving the stolen car (§ 496d, subd.
(a)), consecutively to the indeterminate terms. This portion of the criminal court’s order
is void as it exceeded our remittitur and impermissibly increased defendant’s sentence.
Should the juvenile court transfer the matter to the court of criminal jurisdiction, we
direct the criminal court to modify the judgement so that these two sentences are to be
served concurrently with the indeterminate term and to issue an amended abstract
reflecting this change.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the juvenile
court to conduct an amenability hearing pursuant to current law and for further
proceedings as may be just under the circumstances. If the matter is transferred to a court
of criminal jurisdiction, the criminal court is directed to reinstate the sentence already
7
imposed, except that it shall modify the consecutive sentences for count five (with its
concurrent sentence on count four) to be served concurrently with the indeterminate term.
If the criminal court modifies the sentence, the clerk of the criminal court is directed to
amend the abstract of judgment reflecting this modification and forward a certified copy
of the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
/S/
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/
HULL, Acting P. J.
/S/
MESIWALA, J.
8