P. v. Williams
Filed 3/21/13 P. v. Williams CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL ERNEST WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
B241954
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. VA119137)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County. Michael L.
Schuur, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal.
Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Michael
Williams, in pro. per.; Kevin Michele Finkelstein, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
>
An amended
information charged Michael Williams with one count of
the robbery Williams, “with the intent to do so, took, damaged and destroyed
property of a value exceeding $65,000,†within the meaning of section 12022.6,
subdivision (a)(1).
Evidence
presented at trial showed that robbery victim Cesar Ramirez worked for a
recycling company and sometimes paid out large sums of money in cash for
recyclable materials. On multiple
occasions, defendant Williams had brought car parts to Ramirez’s employer to be
sold. On March 23, 2011, at about 7:30
a.m., Ramirez arrived for work carrying a backpack full of bundles
of cash totaling approximately $120,000.
Ramirez had withdrawn the money from the bank the evening before because
he needed to pay a customer for a large volume of recyclable materials.
As Ramirez
was unlocking the gate at the recycling company, two men approached. A man later identified as Juan Carlos Garcia
demanded Ramirez’s backpack, told Ramirez he had a gun and would shoot, and
moved his hand inside his jacket pocket indicating he had a gun. Garcia grabbed the backpack and Ramirez let
him because Ramirez was afraid Garcia would hurt him. The two men ran off.
Ramirez
flagged down a stranger who was driving by and asked for his help. The stranger allowed Ramirez to get into his
vehicle and they drove off after Garcia and the other man. Ramirez saw Garcia and the other man run to
and climb inside a white sport utility vehicle with paper license plates. Ramirez dialed 911 and provided the location
and description of the white vehicle.
Eventually, Ramirez lost sight of the white vehicle and went back to the
recycling company to wait for the police to respond.
A short
time later officers stopped a white sport utility vehicle matching the
description Ramirez had provided.
Williams was driving and Garcia and his companion were passengers. The officers ordered the three men to exit
the vehicle. An officer looked inside
the vehicle and saw bundles of cash in the center console next to the driver’s
seat. Williams, Garcia and the other man
were arrested. During a field show-up,
Ramirez identified Garcia and the other man as the people who had run off with
his backpack. Ramirez recognized
Williams because of their prior business relationship.
Williams testified
at trial. He stated he went to the
recycling company in the morning on March
23, 2011, because Ramirez was supposed to pay him for recyclable
materials he had dropped off previously.
While waiting for Ramirez to get there, Williams realized the food order
he had picked up from a fast-food restaurant was incorrect. Williams decided to return to the restaurant
to pick up the correct order while Garcia (Williams’s ex-brother-in-law) and
the other man got out of Williams’s vehicle to smoke a cigarette. As Williams was returning from the
restaurant, he saw Garcia and the other man walking down the street. He picked them up and drove away quickly when
he realized they were being chased by another vehicle. Williams stated he did not know Garcia had taken
Ramirez’s backpack. Nor did he know that
Garcia or the other man had placed more than $100,000 in the center console of
the vehicle he was driving. Williams
denied being involved in the robbery.
The jury found Williams guilty of
robbery and found true the special enhancement allegation under section
12022.6, subdivision (a)(1). The trial
court sentenced Williams to four years in state prison: the middle term of three
years for the robbery plus a consecutive one-year term for the enhancement.
Williams
appealed. We appointed
filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the
record independently pursuant to People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On December 10, 2012, we advised
Williams that he personally had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he
wished us to consider. We also directed
his appointed counsel to send the record and opening brief to Williams
immediately. On December 24, 2012, Williams filed a letter
brief.
Williams
raises three issues. First, he contends
his case should have been dismissed because Juan Carlos Garcia was “made
unavailable by the state by deportation.â€
Williams asserts Garcia was a “material witness†who “would have been
able to give testimony that would have le[d] to [his] innocence.â€
An
information filed in this case on September
15, 2011 charged both Juan Carlos Garcia and Williams with the
Ramirez. During a pre-trial proceeding
on October 13, 2011, the
trial court indicated on the record that Garcia was “being returned to his
country of origin.†At a hearing on October 27, 2011, the prosecutor
stated for the record that there was an outstanding warrant for Garcia’s
arrest. The trial court questioned why
federal authorities took custody of Garcia without allowing the state to
prosecute him for this robbery.
Williams
cannot demonstrate error. The record
does not indicate he informed the trial court or the prosecution that he wanted
to call Garcia as a witness. He did not
argue below that the charges against him should be dismissed based on Garcia’s
deportation. Moreover, there is nothing
in the record indicating Garcia would have provided testimony favorable to
Williams. (People v. Valencia (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 808, 812-813, 825.)
The second
issue Williams raises is “illegal search and seizure.†He argues the arresting officer should have
obtained a search warrant before searching the vehicle Williams was driving,
and recovering the bundles of cash.
Williams forfeited this issue by failing to move to suppress the
evidence below. (§ 1538.5, subd.
(m).) He did not object to the admission
of evidence on this ground at trial.
Notwithstanding the forfeiture, Williams’s claim of illegal search and
seizure fails based on the record.
Williams was arrested as a suspect in a robbery. At the time of the search, it was “reasonable
to believe the vehicle contain[ed] evidence of the offense of arrest.†(Arizona v. Gant (2009) 556 U.S.
332, 351.) In fact, the vehicle Williams
was driving away from the scene of the crime did contain the bundles of cash
which were inside Ramirez’s backpack at the time he was robbed.
The third
issue Williams raises is ineffective assistance of counsel. “‘To establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, a [defendant] must demonstrate that (1) counsel’s representation was
deficient in falling below an objective standard of reasonableness under
prevailing professional norms, and (2) counsel’s deficient representation
subjected the [defendant] to prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability
that, but for counsel’s failings, the result would have been more favorable to
the [defendant]. [Citations.] “A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.†[Citation.]’
[Citation.]†(
561.)
The record
does not support any of the arguments Williams makes in support of his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Williams argues his counsel “failed to have [unspecified] evidentiary
hearings,†and “failed to consult with [him] regarding [unspecified] important
facts†and “theories.†He also argues
his counsel failed to conduct “research†regarding, including but not limited
to, phone calls between him and Ramirez, and Ramirez’s statement he had the
bundles of cash at the time of the robbery because he owed money to someone
other than Williams. He further argues
his counsel “[d]id not try and recover any other video tape that would have
been exculpatory evidence on [his] behalf†and “entered the wrong invoices into
evidence.†Williams does not explain
what additional evidence his counsel could have introduced which would have
been helpful to his case.
Williams asserts his counsel failed
to pursue a plea deal for him, refused to let his grandfather testify at trial,
convinced him not to retain private counsel for sentencing by representing she
had “worked out a deal†with the judge, and refused to allow him to address the
trial court at the sentencing hearing.
There is nothing in the record supporting any of these assertions. We have found nothing in the record
establishing deficient performance by Williams’s counsel.
As part of
his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Williams argues, “The composition
of the jury was wrong for [his] case and [counsel] did nothing to rectify
it.â€
He references the fact his counsel made a Wheeler
motion, but he does not challenge the court’s ruling on that motion.
did not ask the trial court to have more potential jurors brought into the
courtroom when the pool was exhausted.
The record indicates both sides accepted the jury panel when there were
three potential jurors left in the pool.
The defense had exercised eight of its ten peremptory challenges at that
point. (Code Civ. Proc., § 231, subd.
(a).) In selecting alternate jurors, the
defense exercised another peremptory challenge and the remaining two jurors in
the pool became the alternates. The
record does not support Williams’s assertion his counsel rendered ineffective
assistance during jury selection.
We have examined the entire record,
including the reporter’s transcript from the hearing on Williams’s
Williams’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and
that no arguable issues exist. (
109-110; People v. Wende,
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CHANEY,
J.
We concur:
MALLANO,
P. J.
ROTHSCHILD,
J.
business transactions with Ramirez.
