P. v. Williams
Filed 12/17/09 P. v. Williams CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LONELL LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | D055176 (Super. Ct. No. SCD216134) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed.
A jury found Lonell Lee Williams guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code, 12021, subd. (a)(1); all statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one count each of being a felon in possession of ammunition ( 12316, subd. (b)(1)) and possessing a firearm without the manufacturer's number ( 12094). The court declared a mistrial on those two counts. Williams waived his right to a jury trial on two prior prison term allegations ( 667.5, subd. (b)) and a strike ( 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and admitted the allegations. The court dismissed the prison priors and sentenced him to four years in prison: the two-year middle term, doubled. Williams appeals. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On the night of July 13, 2008, San Diego Police officers went to Richard Harrison's home to conduct a parole search. As Officers Tagaban and Tews approached the property, they smelled marijuana coming from the dimly lit back yard. Williams was crouching with his lower body protruding from sheets of plywood that were standing against some barbeques in the yard. His shoulders were moving, his arms were outstretched in front of his body, and his hands were not visible. Jasiri Harrison was standing by the fence about eight to 10 feet from Williams.
Harrison crouched down when the police arrived but stood back up almost immediately when Tews commanded him to put his hands in the air. Harrison was taken into custody.
Tagaban and Tews commanded Williams to come out with his hands up. Williams stood up, placed his hands in the air and was taken into custody.
On the ground, behind the plywood, the officers found a loaded revolver partially covered by a white sock. It appeared that the gun had been dropped there recently. It was within arm's reach of where Williams had been crouching, and eight to 10 feetnot within arm's reachfrom where Harrison had been standing. The gun's serial number had been scratched out.
A police detective swabbed the inside of Williams's mouth for DNA. A police criminalist swabbed the gun for DNA and compared the samples from Williams and the gun. Because guns are items that are touched, they have low amounts of DNA and, generally, DNA from more than one person. In light of these facts, it was necessary to consume the entire DNA sample obtained from the gun in order to obtain the most accurate test result. Testing revealed DNA from at least four persons on the gun, with Williams being the major DNA contributor.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel lists, as possible but not arguable issues, (1) whether there was sufficient evidence, aside from the fact that Williams's DNA was on the firearm, that he possessed the firearm; (2) whether the court violated Williams's due process rights by admitting the DNA evidence where the police consumed the entire DNA sample from the firearm during testing and did not provide the defense with an opportunity to participate in the testing; and (3) whether the court abused its discretion by denying Williams's motion to dismiss the strike, thus leaving him subject to the Three Strikes sentencing scheme and precluding a commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center.
We granted Williams permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Williams has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
BENKE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
