People v. Williams CA4/2, E076235

In March 2019, Dante Williams was convicted by a jury of: attempted criminal threats (Pen. Code §§ 664/422(a)), assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code § 245(a)(1)), and two counts of misdemeanor battery on a peace officer (Pen. Code § 243(b)).
The jury found Williams personally used a knife in connection with count 1 (Pen. Code § 12022(b)(1)).
At trial the court found true four prior prison term enhancements (Pen. Code § 667.5(b)).
Original sentence: 7 years (middle term 3 years on count 2 plus four one‑year prior term enhancements); count 1 and its knife enhancement stayed under § 654.
On appeal, Williams argued the one‑year prior term enhancements must be stricken under Senate Bill No. 136; the People agreed and this court remanded for resentencing to strike those enhancements.
On remand the trial court struck the prior term enhancements, increased the term on count 2 from the middle to the upper term (to 4 years), awarded 1,418 days’ custody credit, and resentenced Williams; Williams appealed and appellate counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief asserting no arguable issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the one‑year prior prison term enhancements must be stricken under SB 136	People agreed the enhancements must be stricken and asked for remand for resentencing	Williams argued the enhancements must be stricken under SB 136	Court agreed previously and remanded; on remand the enhancements were stricken
Whether resentencing to the upper term (increasing from middle to upper) was improper	People did not contest resentencing outcome	Williams did not raise a substantive challenge to the increased term on appeal	Court found no arguable issue and affirmed the judgment
Whether appellate counsel complied with Wende/Anders obligations and whether an independent review reveals arguable issues	N/A (not a party position)	Williams did not file a supplemental brief or identify issues	Court concluded counsel complied and independent review revealed no arguable issues; judgment affirmed

People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (established procedure for appointed counsel to request independent appellate review when no arguable issues are identified)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. Supreme Court standard for counsel to inform courts when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (standards for adequacy of counsel and review when counsel asserts no meritorious issues)
People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (California standards for appellate counsel and independent record review)