P. v. Williams
Filed 1/30/09 P. v. Williams CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HIAKEMA JERMAINE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | E045901 (Super.Ct.No. FSB703594 & FSB701428) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Colin J. Bilash, Judge. Affirmed.
George O. Benton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Statement of the Case
Case No. FSB701428
On September 21, 2007, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed an information[1]charging defendant with one count of sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11352, subd. (a)), and also charging defendant with two special allegations filed pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).[2]
On November 6, 2007, pursuant to section 1192.5, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a) and admitted both prior prison term allegations pursuant to a negotiated plea. In accordance with the negotiated disposition, defendant was committed to state prison for seven (7) years. The court also agreed that defendants sentence could be modified to a total of three years, eight months (combined with his sentence in case number FSB703594) pursuant to an agreement by which he would be released from custody pending final sentencing and contitioned on his compliance with certain terms and conditions including that he appear for resentencing in accord with the courts orders and as part of the Cruz[3]waiver.
On May 20, 2008, defendant filed a notice of appeal in case number FSB703594, which this Court, by our order dated August 20, 2008, construed as an appeal from case number FSB701428 as well.
Case No. FSB703594
On September 11, 2007, the District Attorney of San Bernardino County filed a felony complaint which charged defendant with one count of carjacking ( 215, subd. (a)), and one count of second-degree robbery ( 211). The felony complaint also alleged that defendant had used a knife within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and had two convictions for which he had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
On September 27, 2007, defendant, again represented by counsel, pled guilty to an amended charge of receiving a stolen vehicle ( 496d, subd. (a)) pursuant to a negotiated plea (count three, 496d(a)).
Defendant was then sentenced to a state prison commitment of three (3) years and the trial court ordered that that sentence be served consecutively to the term imposed in case number FSB704128. Defendant was advised that his sentence could be modified to a total of three years, eight months (combined with his sentence in case number FSB704128) pursuant to the Cruz agreement by which he would be released from custody pending final sentencing and conditioned on defendants compliance with certain terms and conditions including that he appear for resentencing as ordered by the trial court.
On May 9, 2008, the court imposed the original sentence of three years, having determined that defendant did not comply with the terms and conditions of his plea agreement. The total term for both cases was ten years less custody credits.
On May 20, 2008, defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Statement of FActs
Case No. FSB701428
On the night of April 25, 2007, San Bernardino police officer Mark Aranda saw defendant standing outside at 6th and H Street in the City of San Bernardino. Officer Aranda observed defendant for ten to fifteen minutes. Officer Aranda then approached defendant and asked him if he was working. Defendant replied, What you need? and Officer Aranda asked him for a 20, which Officer Aranda, who had experience in narcotics sales, believed was an amount of narcotics. Defendant directed Officer Aranda to an Econo Lodge motel at 606 North H Street, which was just across the street from their location.
Officer Aranda then drove to the motel in his vehicle and parked in the motel parking lot. He watched defendant walk across the street to the motels south parking lot, and up the central stairwell, which was not enclosed, to the second level of the motel. There defendant met with a second individual who handed him something. Defendant then walked back down the stairs to Officer Aranda and defendant gave him two $10 pieces of suspected cocaine base, each individually wrapped in transparent plastic. Officer Aranda handed defendant a marked $20 bill and Officer Aranda later recovered the marked $20 bill back and identified the serial number as matching the one he had given to defendant.
At the preliminary hearng it was stipulated that the substance weighed a total of .28 grams, and that both pieces tested positive for cocaine.
Case No. FSB703594
On September 7, 2007, Fidias De La Cruz Martinez drove to the area of North Lugo Avenue in the City of San Bernardino. Martinez got out of his vehicle and was standing in the alleyway. While standing in the alley, he was approached by a big black woman, weighing about 180 pounds, and began speaking with her. Another, shorter black woman, weighing between 100-130 pounds, was standing on the sidewalk.
While Martinez was speaking with the big black woman, defendant and a black man enterd the alleyway and approached him. The man with defendant asked Martinez if he had a cigarette lighter. This man had a knife with a four to five-inch folding blade that he held up to Martinezs body and told him in Spanish to be quiet; that nothing was going to happen. Martinez feared for his safety. Defendant was about twenty to twenty-five feet away from Martinez when Martinez saw the man holding the knife. The man with the knife pushed Martinez to the ground and one of the women then took Martinezs wallet and car keys.
The big black woman and the man remained with Martinez, while defendant was standing in the alleyway about 20 feet way on the outside, and the short black woman was on the sidewalk. Martinez said that he didnt see defendant very clerly but identified him as a black male. In testimony during the preliminary hearing, Martinez first said that defendant did not have a weapon in the alleyway, but later Martinez had stated that he couldnt be sure if defendant had a knife because his beard and hair were different at the preliminary hearing.
After taking his wallet and keys, the people drove away in Martinezs vehicle, leaving him alone in the alley. Martinez ran out to the street and stood there until someone took him to his home where he made the police report.
The next day Martinez went to visit his brother-in-law and saw his vehicle parked on the street. Martinez couldnt remember the name of the street where he saw his vehicle. At his brother-in-laws house, Martinezs nephew was doing some work, and Martinez asked him who had the car. The nephew replied that it was the person who lived across the street, in a house about fifty feet away. Martinez called the police and they arrived at the location.
Martinez described to the police the man who was there when his vehicle was taken from him. He said this man was tall, with no hair, weighing about 200 pounds and wearing red shorts. The police at that time located defendant, who matched Martinezs description, and Martinez identified him as the same person he had seen the night before when his car was taken.
When first asked if the man who had stolen his car was present in the courtroom, Martinez positively identified defendant. Later, when asked if the man he had identified in front of his brother-in-laws house was the man present in the courtroom, Martinez said that it had been two weeks so he didnt know, that defendant was more shaven then and didnt have any hair. However, Martinez then did identify defendant as being the same man he had seen in front of his brother-in-laws house.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] The clerks transcript reflects that an amended information was filed on September 24, 2008 [sic] according to the register of actions, but could not be located.
[2] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
