People v. Williams7/1/14 CA2/4
227 Cal. App. 4th 733
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Joseph Williams and others beat, robbed, and later kidnapped victim Melvin Chandler; Chandler suffered severe injuries requiring surgery. Defendant and accomplices were identified by Chandler and arrested (defendant in 2011).
- Jury convicted Williams of first degree residential robbery (§ 211), assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245(a)(1)), and kidnapping (§ 207(a)); true findings: personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7(a)) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22(b)(1)(C)).
- Defendant admitted two prior felony strikes and three prior prison terms, triggering Three Strikes sentencing; trial court imposed 25 years-to-life on each main count plus consecutive 10-year gang enhancements, other enhancements and priors, yielding an aggregate 93 years-to-life (with some stays under § 654).
- Defendant appealed, arguing (inter alia) that because his 25-to-life terms resulted from the Three Strikes penalty provision, section 186.22(b)(5) (15-year minimum parole eligibility in lieu of a fixed gang enhancement) applied and the 10-year gang enhancements should be replaced with the 15-year parole-minimum term.
- The Court of Appeal (partially published) held that Jones governs and that life terms imposed under a penalty provision (like Three Strikes) qualify as “felony punishable by imprisonment…for life” under § 186.22(b)(5); it ordered deletion of the 10-year gang enhancements and insertion of the 15-year minimum parole eligibility, affirmed the judgment as modified, and directed correction of the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §186.22(b)(5) (15‑year parole‑eligibility) applies when life term results from Three Strikes | §186.22(b)(5) applies only if the underlying felony by its own terms provides for life; enhancements that add life do not trigger (per Montes) | Williams: his 25‑to‑life terms (from Three Strikes) are life sentences under §186.22(b)(5), so the 10‑year gang enhancements should be replaced by the 15‑year parole‑eligibility term | Held for Williams: Jones controls — life terms imposed by a penalty provision (Three Strikes) qualify under §186.22(b)(5); replace 10‑year enhancements with 15‑year parole‑minimum |
| Whether consecutive sentencing on robbery and kidnapping violated ex post facto by applying post‑2012 Three Strikes (Proposition 36) changes | Consecutive sentences proper because under the law at time of crime (pre‑Prop 36) consecutive sentences were required where offenses were not same occasion / same operative facts | Williams: trial court relied on current law and thus imposed greater punishment (ex post facto) | Held for People: robbery and kidnapping were temporally and factually separate (hour gap, spatial move), so consecutive sentences were required under the earlier law; no ex post facto violation |
| Whether imposing a §12022.7(GBI) enhancement plus using same injury to justify §186.22(b)(1)(C) violated §1170.1(g) (only greatest GBI enhancement may be executed) | People: although both enhancements were imposed, the sentence on the assault count (with enhancements) was stayed under §654, so none were executed | Williams: the dual use of the same GBI to support both enhancements violates §1170.1(g) | Held for People: §1170.1(g) bars imposing and executing multiple GBI enhancements, but a court may impose and stay duplicative enhancements; because the assault sentence (and its enhancements) was stayed, no violation occurred |
| Whether the abstract of judgment accurately reflected the sentence | N/A | N/A — Williams pointed out inaccuracies | Held: Abstract was incorrect; court directed amended abstract to reflect modified sentencing (replace 10‑year gang enhancements with 15‑year parole‑eligibility and correct box entries) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Montes, 31 Cal.4th 350 (2003) (construed §186.22(b)(5) narrowly to apply only where the underlying felony by its own terms provides for life)
- People v. Lopez, 34 Cal.4th 1002 (2005) (held that a term expressed as years‑to‑life qualifies as a life term for §186.22(b)(5))
- People v. Jones, 47 Cal.4th 566 (2009) (held life sentences imposed under a penalty provision qualify as "felony punishable by...for life" for related enhancement provisions; distinguished enhancements that merely add time)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (2008) (interpreted analogous enhancement‑limiting language to permit a court to impose but stay duplicative enhancements)
- People v. Johnson, 109 Cal.App.4th 1230 (2003) (discussed §186.22(b)(5) as establishing a 15‑year minimum parole eligibility instead of a fixed enhancement)