People v. Williams CA3
C092913
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 22, 2021Background
- In 1994 Brian Williams shot and killed his girlfriend’s estranged husband; a jury convicted him of second degree murder and found a personal firearm-use enhancement true; he pleaded no contest to unlawful firearm possession and admitted a prior strike.
- His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, with one sentencing issue remanded.
- In 2019 Williams petitioned for resentencing under Sen. Bill No. 1437 (Pen. Code § 1170.95).
- The trial court denied the petition, concluding Williams was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for § 1170.95 relief.
- Appointed appellate counsel reported finding no arguable issues and sought Wende review; Williams filed a 34-page pro se supplemental brief.
- The Court of Appeal held Wende does not apply to appeals from denials of post-conviction relief, rejected consideration of pro se supplemental briefing by a represented appellant, and dismissed the appeal as abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Williams’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wende/Anders review applies to appeals from denials of § 1170.95 petitions | Wende applies only to an indigent defendant’s first appeal as of right; not to post-conviction appeals | Counsel invoked Wende and Williams submitted his own supplemental brief claiming arguable issues | Wende review is not required or applicable to appeals from orders denying post-conviction relief; those appeals are not first appeals as of right (Wende/Anders confined to direct appeals) |
| Whether a represented appellant may file pro se supplemental briefs on appeal | Represented appellants may not personally supplement counsel’s appellate brief; pro se filings beyond representation issues are not permitted | Williams submitted a pro se supplemental brief seeking consideration of issues | Pro se submissions by a represented appellant will not be considered; all appellate briefs must be prepared and filed by counsel |
| Whether the appellate court may use supervisory power to consider a represented appellant’s pro se supplemental brief | The court should not adopt Wende-like procedures in post-conviction appeals absent Supreme Court direction | Williams urged the court to consider his pro se brief despite counsel’s Wende report | The court declined to exercise supervisory power to override established precedent (Mattson/Clark/Barnett); any change must come from the California Supreme Court |
| Proper disposition when counsel reports no arguable issues and appellant files pro se briefs | Appeal should be treated as abandoned when appointed counsel reports no arguable issues and the appellant is represented | Williams sought review and urged issues in his pro se filing | The appeal was dismissed as abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishes appellate procedure when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on a first appeal as of right)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (federal counterpart requiring counsel to identify potential appellate issues when seeking withdrawal)
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal; states may require appointed counsel)
- In re Sade C., 13 Cal.4th 952 (Wende/Anders review mandated only for the first appeal as of right)
- People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777 (a represented defendant will not be personally recognized by the court in conducting an appeal; pro se filings not accepted)
- People v. Clark, 3 Cal.4th 41 (reiterates that represented appellants may not personally present supplemental briefs except limited Marsden-type representation motions)
- In re Barnett, 31 Cal.4th 466 (limits pro se submissions to matters concerning representation and requires proper labeling; other pro se filings will be returned or stricken)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (example of an appellate court that considered adopting supervisory procedures in post-conviction appeals; cited as part of the inter-court disagreement)