Filed 6/14/22 P. v. Williams CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F081466 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CMS2060) v. AHKEEM DEISHAVAR WILLIAMS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Steven D. Barnes, Judge. Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein, Stephanie A. Mitchell, Kari Ricci Mueller and Eric L. Christoffersen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Smith, J. Defendant Ahkeem Deishavar Williams pled guilty to the charge of making criminal threats and admitted a prior “strike” conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)).1 On appeal, defendant contends that (1) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to correctly inform him of the limitations on his custody credit earning potential caused by admission of a prior strike conviction, (2) his substitute counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion to withdraw defendant’s guilty plea, and (3) his sentence must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing in light of Senate Bill No. 567’s (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 567) amendments to section 1170, subdivision (b). The People disagree on all accounts. We vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for further proceedings pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (b). PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 28, 2019, the Kings County District Attorney filed an information, charging defendant with making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2), and misdemeanor trespassing (§ 602, subd. (q); count 3). As to count 1, the information further alleged that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) which also qualified as a serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)). On August 26, 2019, defendant filed a motion to set aside all counts of the information (§ 995). On September 9, 2019, the trial court granted defendant’s motion as to counts 2 and 3, but denied the motion as to count 1. On October 25, 2019, the trial court held a change of plea hearing. Before changing his plea, defendant inquired regarding his prison custody credit earning capacity. The trial court told defendant that his custody credits were determined by the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals