P. v. Williams
Filed 7/18/13 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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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.
PAUL KENNETH WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
D062225
(Super. Ct.
No. SCE317744)
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court
of
County, Charles W. Ervin, Judge. Affirmed.
Johanna R.
Pirko, for Defendant and Appellant, under appointment by the Court of Appeal.
Kamala D.
Harris, Attorney General for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND AND
DISCUSSION
Paul Kenneth
Williams pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of violating a court order
(Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), and a felony charge of
(Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).
In exchange, the People dismissed charges that he made a criminal threat
(Pen. Code, § 422), and committed cruelty to three different children by
endangering their health (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b)). Under People
v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 (Cruz),
Williams agreed to waive his right to withdraw his guilty plea if he was
arrested for another crime. At a
hearing, the court questioned Williams regarding the factual basis for the
plea, and he pleaded guilty as noted on the plea form.
The court declined Williams's
request to reduce the felony count to a misdemeanor, noting that in the interim
period between the plea bargain hearing and sentencing, Williams was arrested
"on another domestic violence type charge," thus implicating
Williams's Cruz waiver. The court
suspended imposition of sentence and granted Williams probation for three years
on condition that he serve 365 days in jail and pay certain fines. Williams appeals. We affirm.
Appointed
counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but
asks that this court review the record for error as mandated by
to Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738, counsel refers to possible but not arguable issues of whether: (1) Williams's guilty plea was
constitutionally valid; (2) there was a proper factual basis for the plea; (3)
the trial court abused its discretion in concluding Williams's new arrest constituted
a "clear and obvious Cruz waiver
violation"; and (4) the court abused its discretion in denying Williams's
motion to reduce the felony conviction to a misdemeanor.
We granted
Williams permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Our review of the entire record pursuant to
v. California, supra, 386 U.S.
738, including the possible issues referred to by appellate counsel and the
circumstances surrounding the court's taking of the plea, has disclosed no
reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Williams on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
