Filed 8/14/17 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHRISTINA MARIE WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F073579
(Super. Ct. No. F16900118)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda S. Allen-Hill, Judge.
Francine R. Tone, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Christina Marie Williams pled no contest to one count of corporal injury on a cohabitant, in violation of Penal Code[1] section 273.5, subdivision (a), in exchange for dismissal of other counts and enhancements. The trial court found unusual circumstances and placed Williams on three years probation. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which was granted. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On January 3, 2016, [2] Officer Robert Martinez responded to a location after a report of a domestic disturbance involving a knife. Upon arrival, Martinez made contact with the male victim B.G., who had a cut below his left eye and on one finger.
G. told Martinez that he and Williams had been living together for about five years. G. was asleep in their bedroom; he was awakened by Williams talking on her cell phone. G. decided to get up and go sleep in the living room. Around 2:00 a.m., G. received a phone call from his ex-girlfriend S.N. telling him she was getting inappropriate messages on her cell phone because Williams had posted S.N.’s phone number on a dating website with the message “talk dirty to me.”
G. went to ask Williams why she had posted S.N.’s phone number on a public site and to tell her that was inappropriate. An argument ensued and Williams punched G. three to four times; one of the punches hit his left eye and caused a visible injury. Williams did not want G. to call the police; G. left the residence for a short time.
When G. returned, Williams was still visibly upset. She started arguing with him again, but G. just wanted to sleep so he went into the bedroom. While G. was lying on the bed, Williams came in, straddled him, and pulled out a knife she held against his neck. Williams had her legs on his arms, pinning him down. He was able to free his left arm and grabbed for the knife; he was cut on one finger.
G. managed to push Williams off of him. Williams blocked the doorway, pointing the knife at him with one hand and holding a golf club in the other. G. called 911 and Williams moved out of the doorway; G. stepped outside to wait for police. Williams fled and was not there when police arrived.
A felony complaint filed January 6 charged Williams with two counts of corporal injury to a cohabitant in violation of section 273.5, subdivision (a), with an allegation that she personally used a deadly weapon; and one count of false imprisonment by violence in violation of section 236.
On January 20, Williams signed a felony advisement, waiver of rights, and plea form in open court. Williams pled to one count of violating section 273.5, subdivision (a), without an enhancement, with the proviso that she was to “be released at sentencing.” In exchange, the other counts and enhancements were to be dismissed.
Defense counsel and the People stipulated that if the trial court were to review the police reports, the reports would support a factual basis for the plea. The trial court ordered the reports be made part of the record. The trial court also informed Williams of her constitutional rights and accepted a waiver of those rights. The trial court found that Williams had pled no contest knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis for the plea.
At the February 17 sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Williams on three years formal probation. Terms of probation included that Williams spend 89 days in custody; she was awarded 89 days of custody credit. The trial court noted that Williams was not eligible for probation and noted her juvenile record for a similar offense. However, the trial court found unusual circumstances in that Williams was “youthful,” had no other adult convictions, and G. requested the trial court show leniency. Various fines and fees were imposed. A determination of victim restitution was reserved.
On April 15, Williams filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause. In her request for a certificate of probable cause, Williams stated her actions were in self-defense. The trial court granted the certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, on December 19. That same day, this court issued its letter to Williams inviting her to submit a supplemental brief. No supplemental brief was filed.
In her request for a certificate of probable cause, Williams claimed her actions were in self-defense. Yet, she stipulated to the police reports providing a factual basis for her plea and those reports show Williams to be the aggressor, with G. leaving the residence in an attempt to deescalate the situation. Williams fled after G. called 911 and before the police arrived. Williams was represented by counsel throughout the case, and defense counsel discussed the merits of the case and possible defenses with Williams before she signed the plea agreement. Before entering her plea, Williams was advised that she had the right to present a defense to the charges and knowingly gave up that right.
Williams was fully advised of her rights and the consequences of her plea before entering the no contest plea. Williams appears to be suffering from postplea apprehension, which is not a valid basis for setting aside a plea. (People v. Knight (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 337, 344.)
After an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.