P. v. Williams
Filed 3/22/13 P. v. Williams CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
OCTAVUS WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
D063002
(Super. Ct.
No. SCD207315)
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
Robert F. O'Neill, Judge. Appeal
dismissed.
In November
2008, a jury found Octavus Williams guilty of
§ 187, subd. (a)) for the benefit of a criminal
street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In February 2009, the court sentenced
Williams to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison. In September 2010, this court affirmed the
judgment. In December, the California
Supreme Court denied Williams's petition for review.
In October
2012, Williams filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court.
In the petition, he claimed that on July 24, 2012, he received July 2009 transcripts from his
then appointed appellate attorney and thereby discovered that the attorney was
ineffective. Williams claimed the
attorney "was put on notice [by the prosecutor] that the key prosecution
witness . . . had engaged in doctor shopping while the
instant case was still pending," and the prosecutor believed "that
such conduct would be or could be construed as a
nothing with this information. The trial
court denied the petition for writ of error coram
nobis, correctly noting, inter alia, "That a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel, which relates more to a mistake of law than of fact, is
an inappropriate ground for relief on coram
nobis has long been the rule."
(People v. Kim (2009) 45
Cal.4th 1078, 1104.) Williams
appeals.
Appellate
counsel appointed in the instant appeal has filed a brief summarizing the
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 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738 (Anders), counsel lists, as a
possible, but not arguable, issue:
whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for writ of error
Williams permission to file a brief on his own behalf.
"The
independent judicial review mandated by Anders,
supra, 386 U.S.
738, applies only to a defendant's first appeal as of right. (Pennsylvania
v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 557; In
re Sade C. [1996] 13 Cal.4th [952,] 972-974.)" (People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119.)
This is not Williams's "first appeal as of right" in this
case. (Ibid.) Thus,
DISPOSITION
The appeal
is dismissed.
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
In any case, a review of the record
pursuant to Wende and
arguable appellate issues and Williams has been competently represented by
counsel on this appeal.
