People v. Williams CA1/4 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 12/20/22 P. v. Williams CA1/4
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FOUR
    THE PEOPLE,
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    A165870
    v.
    INDUGO ASIFA WILLIAMS,                                                 (Sonoma County
    Super. Ct. No. PRL 202056-1)
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Indugo Asifa Williams was convicted in 2018 of attempted extortion
    (Pen. Code, § 524). He was sentenced to two years, eight months in prison.
    Williams was paroled in September 2020. In June 2022, Williams pleaded no
    contest to violating the terms of his parole. His appointed appellate counsel
    filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record for arguable issues
    pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende).1 While it is
    questionable that Wende review applies in a post-conviction proceeding like
    this one (see People v. Freeman (2021) 
    61 Cal.App.5th 126
    , 134; People v.
    Serrano (2012) 
    211 Cal.App.4th 496
    , 500–501), we have nonetheless
    conducted a review pursuant to Wende, and affirm because Williams’ appeal
    presents no meritorious arguable issues.
    Counsel informed Williams of his right to file a supplemental brief on
    1
    his own behalf, which he has not done.
    BACKGROUND
    In 2022, Williams was under parole supervision. He agreed to parole
    conditions, including continuous electronic monitoring and prohibitions on
    tampering with his monitoring device. He was also required to obey all laws.
    On June 3, 2022, Williams removed his monitoring device. That same day,
    Williams caused a disturbance at “an elderly facility.” Responding officers
    from the Santa Rosa police department attempted to detain Williams.
    Williams physically resisted the police and attempted to “headbutt” one of the
    officers.
    On June 9, 2022, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
    filed a petition to revoke Williams’ parole. At the June 21, 2022 hearing on
    the petition, Williams pleaded no contest to violating the terms of his parole.
    Before entering his plea, Williams was informed of the consequences of his
    plea, was informed of and waived his rights to trial by jury, to confront and
    cross-examine witnesses, to subpoena witnesses for his defense, to testify in
    his own defense, and his privilege against self-incrimination. After finding a
    factual basis for the plea, the trial court found Williams violated his parole
    conditions, ordered Williams reinstated on parole, and modified the terms to
    include 120 days in county jail.
    Williams filed a timely notice of appeal. Williams requested a
    certificate of probable cause, alleging lack of reasonable suspicion or probable
    cause to detain him at the time of his arrest, discrimination by the Public
    Defender’s office prompted by an unsuccessful Marsden motion, and
    inadequate time to prepare for the parole revocation hearing. His request for
    a certificate of probable cause was denied.
    2
    DISCUSSION
    Assuming Wende review applies here, we find no meritorious issues to
    be argued. (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 
    40 Cal.4th 529
    , 544, fn. 7
    [appellate court may retain an appeal seeking Wende review].) In order to
    challenge a judgment following a no contest plea, based on the matters
    Williams specified for appeal, he was required to obtain a certificate of
    probable cause from the trial court. (Pen. Code § 1237.5, subd. (b); Cal. Rules
    of Court, rule 8.304(b) (Rule 8.304); In re Chavez (2003) 
    30 Cal.4th 643
    , 650–
    651 & fn. 3; People v. McEwan (2007) 
    147 Cal.App.4th 173
    , 177–178; People v.
    Stubbs (1998) 
    61 Cal.App.4th 243
    , 244–245.) As relevant here, a defendant
    who has entered a no contest plea and has not obtained a certificate of
    probable cause may only appeal the sentence or other matters occurring after
    entry of the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.
    (Rule 8.304(b)(2)(B); People v. Vargas (2007) 
    148 Cal.App.4th 644
    , 651.)
    The trial court’s denial of a certificate of probable cause made the
    appeal “inoperative” except as to matters occurring after entry of the plea.
    (People v. Stubbs, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 245; Rule 8.304(b)(2)(B).)
    Having independently reviewed the record, we have found no meritorious
    issues. We are satisfied Williams’ appellate attorney fully complied with
    counsel’s responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    GOLDMAN, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    POLLAK, P. J.
    STREETER, J.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A165870

Filed Date: 12/20/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2022