P. v. Williams

Filed 4/15/20 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ARNOLD BERNARD
WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B297781
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. YA078839)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Mannix, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Acting
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and
David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
* * * * * * * * * *

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Defendant and appellant Arnold Bernard Williams appeals
from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1170.95. We affirm.
Defendant was charged with one count of second degree
murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and three counts of
attempted murder (§ 187, subd. (a), § 664) arising from a gang
shooting where defendant fired at rival gang members and, in the
process, fatally shot one of his fellow gang members who was also
involved in the altercation. A jury found defendant guilty of the
murder and three attempted murders and found true a gang
allegation and firearm use allegations as to each count (§ 186.22,
§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). Defendant was sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence of 70 years to life.
This court affirmed defendant’s conviction (People v.
Williams (Sept. 18, 2014, B249950) [nonpub. opn.]). The
Supreme Court denied review in November 2014.
On March 28, 2019, defendant filed a petition in propria
persona requesting resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1170.95, a statutory provision that became effective
January 1, 2019. Defendant’s petition requested the
appointment of counsel.
The trial court denied the petition. In the court’s written
denial order, the court explained: “[T]he petition is summarily
denied because the petitioner is not entitled to relief as a matter
of law, for the following reason: [¶] The petitioner was convicted
of murder but the court file reflects that the petitioner was the
actual killer and was not convicted under a theory of felony-
murder of any degree, or a theory of natural and probable
consequences.”

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Defendant contends the trial court erred in summarily
denying the petition without first appointing him counsel who
could have assisted him in briefing the issues and explaining why
relief was warranted. Defendant argues the court’s summary
denial is at odds with the statutory language, the legislative
history and violates his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
We disagree. “When we interpret statutes, giving effect to
legislative purpose is the touchstone of our mission.” (People v.
Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 409.) “The text of the statute is
integral to our understanding of the statute’s purpose.” (Ibid.)
“We must take ‘the language . . . as it was passed into law, and
[we] must, if possible without doing violence to the language and
spirit of the law, interpret it so as to harmonize and give effect to
all its provisions.’ ” (Id. at pp. 409-410.)
Penal Code section 1170.95 was enacted as part of the
legislative changes effected by Senate Bill 1437 (2017-2018
Reg. Sess.). “Senate Bill 1437 was enacted to ‘amend the felony
murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
as it relates to murder, 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).)” (People v. Martinez
(2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 719, 723.)
Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (a) provides, in
plain language, that only persons “convicted of felony murder or
murder under a natural and probable consequences theory” may
file a petition seeking resentencing. Section 1170.95,
subdivision (c) provides the court “shall review the petition and

-- 3 of 5 --

4
determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that
the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section.”
Penal Code section 1170.95 contemplates an initial
eligibility determination by the court. Allegations stated in a
resentencing petition may be erroneous. Where, as here, there is
no reasonable factual dispute the defendant is not eligible for
relief, it would be a waste of judicial resources to automatically
require the appointment of counsel and briefing on essentially a
moot point. Several courts have similarly interpreted the
statutory language and have concluded that a defendant seeking
resentencing is entitled to appointment of counsel only after
demonstrating a prima facie case. (See, e.g., People v. Verdugo
(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 328-332, review granted Mar. 18,
2020, S260493; People v. Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 58,
review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260410; People v. Lewis (2020)
43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139-1140, review granted Mar. 18, 2020,
S260598.) We adopt the persuasive analyses in these decisions
and conclude defendant’s rights were not infringed by the denial
of counsel.
Defendant was charged and convicted as the shooter, with
specific jury findings that he personally used and discharged a
firearm in the commission of the offenses. The prosecution did
not rely on felony murder or the natural and probable
consequences doctrine in prosecuting defendant. The court, after
reviewing the court file which reflected that defendant was
convicted of murder and attempted murder as the actual shooter,
was well within its rights and acting in harmony with the
statutory scheme by issuing a summary denial of the petition.
Any denial of a state statutory right to counsel is subject to
harmless error analysis. (People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 28-

-- 4 of 5 --

5
29 [denial of right that is “purely a creature of state statutory
law” is subject to standard for state law errors set forth in People
v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836].) If there were error, it was
harmless by any standard.
DISPOSITION
The order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.
GRIMES, J.
WE CONCUR:
BIGELOW, P. J.
WILEY, J.

-- 5 of 5 --