Filed 7/29/26 P. v. Williams CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B346446
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA124662-01)
v.
MELVIN WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Appeal affirmed in part
and dismissed in part.
Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), we review an order denying Melvin Williams’s
petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1171. We
find part of the order nonappealable and otherwise affirm the
remainder of the trial court’s order denying the petition.
BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2013, a jury convicted appellant Melvin
Williams of corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/child’s parent;
assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury; criminal
threats; possession of a firearm by a felon; contempt of court; first
degree residential burglary; two counts of assault with a
semiautomatic firearm; and two counts of attempted murder.
The jury found true several firearm enhancements. The court
found true a prior strike conviction.
On November 22, 2013, the trial court sentenced Williams
to an aggregate term of 56 years to life.
On April 7, 2025, Williams filed a petition for recall and
resentencing pursuant to section 1171. He asked the trial court
to order disclosure of material exculpatory evidence in a peace
officer’s personnel file pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (superseded by statute as stated in Long
Beach Police Officers Assn v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th
59, 68); People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030; and Brady
v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. He also asked the court to
“modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative
statute,” citing sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7 and
1172.75.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
On May 9, 2025, the trial court denied Williams’s request
for resentencing. After setting out the provisions of section 1171,
the trial court held: “The petitioner seek relief pursuant to all the
above cited ameliorative statutes. However, he was not
sentenced pursuant to any ameliorative statutes, as evidenced by
his attached abstract of judgment. As he was not sentenced
pursuant to any postconviction proceeding that is authorized in
law, (see 1171(a) and (c)(1) above), the court denies the petition.”
Williams timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent Williams on appeal. On
April 17, 2026, counsel filed a no issue brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo. Counsel advised us they told Williams he could file
his own supplemental brief within 30 days and sent him
transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of the brief.
On May 18, 2026, this court sent Williams notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
him he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief
or letter stating any issues he believes we should consider. We
also advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the
appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
On May 21, 2026, Williams filed a supplemental brief. He
contends: 1) the prosecutor’s statement at Williams’s original
sentencing contained prejudicial inaccuracies contradicted by the
probation report and the victim’s own sworn declarations; 2) he is
entitled to resentencing under section 1172.1; 3) his counsel was
ineffective at the original sentencing for failing to present
mitigating evidence, specifically the Victim’s Impact Statement
and Notarized Affidavit which clarify the lack of serious injury to
the victim; 4) the integrity of the original conviction is
“questioned” by the potential withholding of favorable evidence
3
under Brady v. Maryland and Pitchess v. Superior Court which
are relevant to the “interest of justice” standard applied during a
section 1172.1 hearing.
DISCUSSION
Errors at the Original Sentencing Hearing
Williams brought his resentencing petition under section
1171, which authorizes procedures for postconviction proceedings
“to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an “ ‘ameliorative
statute.’ ” Such statutes, “include, but are not limited to,
[s]ections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.” (§ 1171,
subd. (a).) The trial court does not initiate postconviction
procedures until it receives a request that is “authorized in law.”
(Id., subd, (c)(1).)
Williams contends he should be resentenced because his
original sentencing hearing was compromised by the prosecutor’s
misleading remarks to the court about the severity of the offense
and the victim’s injuries, ineffective assistance of trial counsel,
and failure to disclose material relevant under Brady v.
Maryland and Pitchess v. Superior Court. These challenges are
not cognizable under any ameliorative statutes, including those
listed in section 1171. Section 1170.18 provides relief for a
person serving a sentence for a felony conviction who would have
been guilty of a misdemeanor under section 1170.18. Section
1172.7 invalidates enhancements imposed pursuant to section
11370.2 of the Health and Safety Code. Section 1172.75
invalidates enhancements imposed for prior prison terms.
Williams also contends he has the right to be resentenced
under section 1172.1. Section 1172.1 authorizes a trial court to
recall the sentences of incarcerated defendants and resentence
4
them under certain circumstances. Under section 1172.1, a trial
court may recall and resentence “at any time” upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, the
district attorney of the county in which the defendant was
sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice
originally prosecuted the case. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) Notably,
section 1172.1, by its terms, denies a defendant the right to
petition the court for recall and resentencing. (Id., subd. (c) [“[a]
defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the
court under this section,” and “[i]f a defendant requests
consideration for relief under this section, the court is not
required to respond.”].)
There is no right to appeal from the denial of a petition
filed under section 1172.1 by a defendant. (People v. Hodge
(2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 995; People v. Faustinos (2025)
109 Cal.App.5th 687, 692 [order declining to act on defendant’s
unauthorized section 1172.1 petition is not an appealable order];
People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1047 [same].)
Williams is not entitled to relief under section 1172.1. He is
neither authorized to file a petition nor entitled to appeal the
trial court’s order.
We also decline Williams’s request that we conduct an
independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 232.)
5
DISPOSITION
The appeal as to the denial of relief under section 1172.1 is
dismissed. In all other respects the order denying relief is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
WILEY, J.
VIRAMONTES, J.
6
