Filed 8/27/26 P. v. Usilton CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F090802
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. CR-19-001145)
v.
WILLIAM BECK USILTON III, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Jeff
Mangar, Judge.
Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary and
Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant William Beck Usilton, III (defendant) “spent an evening
drinking at a bar with Cody Sorensen, who regularly visited defendant at his apartment
and stayed overnight. A few hours later, defendant and Sorensen argued in the
apartment, and defendant shot Sorensen in the face and killed him,” when Sorensen was
unarmed. (People v. Usilton (F083471, Feb. 14, 2023) [nonpub. opn.].)
After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter as a lesser
included offense of second degree murder, with a firearm enhancement. The trial court
sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 21 years based on consecutive upper terms.
In defendant’s direct appeal, this court affirmed the jury’s findings on the
conviction and enhancement, but vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for
resentencing because the trial court imposed upper terms based on aggravating
circumstances that were not found true by the finder of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
On remand, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the truth of four aggravating
circumstances and found them true beyond a reasonable doubt. The court again imposed
consecutive upper terms and sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 21 years in
prison, imposed fines and fees, and directed the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to update his custody credits.
In this appeal, defendant and the People agree that an amended minute order and
abstract of judgment must be filed as to the trial court’s rulings at the resentencing
hearing. We order those corrections and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2021, after a jury trial in Stanislaus County Superior Court, defendant
was found not guilty of the charged offense of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187,
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2.
subd. (a)) but guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192,
subd. (a)) with an enhancement for personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
On October 18, 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to 21 years in prison
based on the upper term of 11 years for voluntary manslaughter plus a consecutive upper
term of 10 years for firearm enhancement. The court imposed a restitution fine of $6,000
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and stayed the parole revocation fine in the same amount
(§ 1202.45). It also imposed a criminal conviction assessment of $30 (Gov. Code,
§ 70373) and a court operations assessment of $40 (§ 1465.8). The court awarded actual
credits of 982 days and conduct credits of 147 days for total credits of 1129 days.
Defendant’s Direct Appeal
On appeal from the judgment, this court rejected defendant’s evidentiary and
instructional arguments, and prosecutorial misconduct claims, and affirmed his
conviction for voluntary manslaughter and the firearm enhancement finding.
However, we vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing
because the trial court imposed upper terms based on aggravating factors that were not
admitted by defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by
section 1170, subdivision (b). We declined to address his challenges to the fines and fees
since he could raise those issues at the resentencing hearing. (People v. Usilton, supra,
F083471.)
REMAND PROCEEDINGS
On remand, a first amended information was filed on April 19, 2024, that charged
defendant with voluntary manslaughter and the firearm enhancement, and alleged
four aggravating factors: the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of
great bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness or
callousness (Cal. Rules of Court,2 rule 4.421(a)(1)); the victim was particularly
2 All further references to rules are to the California Rules of Court.
3.
vulnerable or unable to defend himself (rule 4.421(a)(3)); defendant engaged in violent
conduct indicating a serious danger to society (rule 4.421(b)(1)); and defendant was on
probation or parole at the time the crime was committed (rule 4.421(b)(4)).
On the same day, the trial court conducted the arraignment, and the parties agreed
defendant had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter and the firearm enhancement
was found true. Thereafter, defendant waived formal arraignment and denied the
aggravating circumstances.
On April 4, 2025, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and elected to have a
bench trial on the aggravating circumstances.
The Bench Trial on the Aggravating Circumstances
On October 28 and 29, 2025, the trial court conducted the bench trial on the
aggravating circumstances. The court stated it had reviewed the trial transcripts, and
granted defendant’s motion to take judicial notice of this court’s nonpublished opinion
from defendant’s direct appeal.
The prosecutor and defense counsel introduced evidence and called witnesses that
replicated much of the trial evidence. The prosecutor also introduced evidence about
defendant’s prior record.
The Trial Court’s Judgment
On November 17, 2025, the trial court found the four aggravating circumstances
were true beyond a reasonable doubt, and made extensive evidentiary findings.
“[U]nder the aggravating factor under [rule ] 4.421(a)(3), that’s
whether or not the victim was particularly vulnerable, in this case the
defendant used that gun at the argument with the victim, the
defendant made that choice to kill without malice due to the verbal
disagreement, and I do agree that the victim was vulnerable, that he
was defenseless, he was unguarded, and unprotected .… And this
incident arose from a sudden quarrel stemming from a meaningless
argument.
“Defendant had multiple nonlethal options available. He could
have called the police, removed the victim’s property from his
apartment or used minimal physical force such as grabbing or
4.
pushing. There was [sic] even some boxes or pet cages separating
them. They stood approximately ten feet apart.
“It is noted that the victim was about five seven, 137 pounds. He
was about 25 years old. In contrast, the defendant was
approximately six foot, six one, about 250 to 280 pounds, which was
a difference of about five inches in height and over 100 pounds
more.
“The two were friends and some would say even good friends as
we heard from the testimony and from some of the exhibits that were
submitted.
“The victim had planned to spend the night at the defendant’s
apartment and had already brought in his belongings and his duffle
bag and placed them inside before they left to go out.
“And the defendant and the victim even went out drinking,
including going to [a bar] in Oakdale with defendant driving. And
later that evening the verbal disagreement began.
“And we heard testimony that the victim told the defendant ‘If
you’re going to shoot me, then shoot me.’ The defendant then shot
the victim. And the investigation revealed that there was nothing in
the victim’s hands. There were apparently no guns, no knives, or
anything else. And this all indicates that the victim was vulnerable
as an aggravating factor for [c]ount 1, which was voluntary
manslaughter, for [rule] 4.421(a)(3).
“And the next aggravating factor that I find for [c]ount 1 is
[rule] 4.421(b)(4) that the defendant was on probation when the
crime was committed. According to the trial exhibit and the
testimony of Probation Officer Arias, the defendant had been placed
on probation approximately nine months before committing the
current offense. I find this as an aggravating factor for [c]ount 1,
voluntary manslaughter, for [rule] 4.421(b)(4).
“So the next aggravating factor is [rule] 4.421(a)(1) and I find
that this applies to the enhancement at the time involved great
violence, great bodily harm … or acts disposed of high degree of
cruelty, viciousness and callousness.
“The murder was witnessed by others, including [defendant’s
sister], and the lives of those inside the apartment as well as
residents in nearby units were also placed in danger.
“The victim was standing near the front door when he was shot.
The bullet traveled through the victim’s skull and later recovered in
the [apartment] complex. The victim had been invited into the
5.
apartment to retrieve his belongings which were apparently in a
duffle bag. [A]n aggravating factor with a firearm enhancement is
that the defendant possessed a loaded and operable firearm. The
defendant discharged that firearm and inflicted great bodily injury
when he shot the victim and that injury resulted in the death of [the
victim].
“When using a firearm during a verbal argument reflects an
extreme and dangerous aggression. Shooting one’s friend in the face
over a verbal dispute demonstrates cruelty and callousness, the
taking of the life is distinctly worse than the ordinary commission of
a firearm-related offense. I find this aggravating factor true as to the
gun use enhancement per [rule] 4.421(a)(1).
“So that leaves the next aggravating factor under
[rule] 4.421(b)(1). And that factor is that the defendant engaged in
violent conduct that indicates a serious danger to society. We know
that in the past he had been convicted of drinking and driving, and
drinking and driving is an inherently dangerous act. Alcohol,
coincidentally, was also involved here as the defendant and the
victim were both drinking on the night of the offense.
“We also heard evidence during the court trial that the defendant
previously threatened a man who was with his sister, the conduct
that further reflects a pattern of violence. You also heard from the
defendant’s sister that he would display the handgun in front of
others not for self-defense, but I think he had indicated or the
testimony came out was to boast or show off.
“Additionally, the defendant attempted to influence the witnesses
by saying, ‘You better say it was self-defense.’ And the defendant’s
own sister testified that he told her, ‘say self-defense or you’re next.’
She was visibly emotional and crying on the stand expressing that
she was afraid of … defendant. And her testimony was credible.
And it was clear that she remains traumatized by the events of that
night. And so I find that this factor is true as to the gun use
enhancement per [rule] 4.421(b)(1).”
The trial court found defendant was statutorily ineligible for probation except in
unusual circumstances because he personally used a firearm in the commission of the
offense, and there were no unusual circumstances.
The trial court acknowledged it had discretion to dismiss or reduce the firearm
enhancement and/or impose concurrent sentences, but found it would endanger public
safety to do so and that would not be in the interests of justice.
6.
The trial court considered mitigating factors, including defendant’s prior military
service and service-related post-traumatic stress disorder. The court found the
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors.
The trial court imposed the upper term of 11 years for voluntary manslaughter plus
the consecutive upper term of 10 years for the firearm enhancement for the aggregate
term of 21 years.
The trial court imposed the restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and
suspended the parole revocation fine in the same amount pending successful completion
of parole (§ 1202.45). It also imposed the court security fee of $40 (§ 1465.8), and a
criminal conviction assessment fee of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373).
The trial court asked defense counsel if he knew the total for defendant’s updated
credits. Counsel said no. The court directed CDCR to determine his updated credits. An
amended abstract of judgment was not filed.
On November 21, 2025, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
On appeal from the resentencing hearing, defendant does not challenge the trial
court’s findings on the aggravating circumstances or imposition of the upper terms.
Instead, he contends the minute order from the November 17, 2025 resentencing hearing
must be corrected, and an amended abstract of judgment must be filed to reflect the
court’s rulings. The People agree.
I. Calculation of Updated Credits
First, defendant states the trial court erroneously delegated the calculation of his
updated credits to CDCR. Defendant requests this court modify the judgment to award
him an additional 1,491 days of actual credits for the time he spent in custody between
the original sentencing hearing and the resentencing hearing.
The People agree the trial court was required to calculate and award defendant’s
updated credits at the resentencing hearing. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20,
7.
23, 41.) The People further agree with defendant’s calculation that his updated actual
credits from October 19, 2021, the day after the original sentencing hearing, to the
resentencing hearing on November 17, 2025, are 1,491 days; and the abstract must state
he had 2,473 days of actual credits and 147 days of conduct credits, and total credits of
2,620.
II. Preparation of an Amended Abstract of Judgment
Next, defendant states the trial court failed to prepare an amended abstract of
judgment after the resentencing hearing even though this court vacated the entirety of
defendant’s sentence on appeal. Defendant requests this court order the trial court
prepare an amended abstract of judgment for the November 17, 2025 hearing, to show the
imposition of sentence, the entirety of the sentencing decisions, and his credits.
The People agree the trial court was required to prepare an amended abstract of
judgment showing the entirety of defendant’s sentence, including the fines, fees, and
credits, imposed at the November 17, 2025 resentencing hearing. (People v. Mitchell
(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–186.
III. Correction of the Minute Order
Finally, defendant requests this court order correction of the minute order for the
November 17, 2025 resentencing hearing to state the trial court’s factual findings that the
four aggravating circumstances were found true beyond a reasonable doubt.
The People agree the November 17, 2025 minute order only states that the trial
court gave a ruling “as on the record” about the aggravating circumstances, by simply
referring to the reporter’s transcript. Section 1167 requires the court to announce its
factual findings at the conclusion of the hearing, “which shall be in substantially the form
prescribed for the general verdict of a jury and shall be entered in the minutes.”
The minute order for the November 17, 2025 resentencing hearing must be
amended to specify the trial court found true beyond a reasonable doubt four aggravating
circumstances pursuant to rules 4.421(a)(1), 4.421(a)(3), 4.421(b)(1), and 4.421(b)(4).
8.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended minute order for the proceedings
on November 17, 2025, that states the trial court found true beyond a reasonable doubt
the four aggravating circumstances alleged in the April 19, 2024, amended information:
the crime involved great violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, or other
acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness or callousness (rule 4.421(a)(1)); the
victim was particularly vulnerable or unable to defend himself (rule 4.421(a)(3));
defendant engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society
(rule 4.421(b)(1)); and defendant was on probation or parole at the time the crime was
committed (rule 4.421(b)(4)).
The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment for the
November 17, 2025 resentencing hearing that is consistent with the original abstract but
with the following corrections: imposition of a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section
1202.4, subdivision (b) and a stayed parole revocation fine of $300 pursuant to section
1202.45; 2,620 days of total credits based on 2,473 days of actual credit and 147 days of
conduct credit; the “ ‘date sentence pronounced’ ” as November 17, 2025; “and the event
at which sentence was imposed as ‘at resentencing per decision on appeal.’ ”
The clerk of the superior court shall forward a certified copy of the amended
abstract of judgment to all appropriate authorities.
As modified, the judgment is affirmed.
9.