P. v. Williams
Filed 3/22/07 P. v. Williams CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CEDRIC DARNELL WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. | F051023 (Super. Ct. No. F06901114-9) O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David Gottlieb, Judge.
William Davies, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
In December 2005, the 15-year-old victim began associating with appellant, Cedric Darnell Williams, Jonathon McKean, Thomas Ray Jackson, Shakore Ogan, and other older men. During January and early February 2006, the victim engaged in numerous acts of intercourse, oral copulation and sodomy with various men including Williams, McKean, Ogan, and Jackson. On separate occasions, Williams and Ogan told the victim they wanted to put her on a prostitution track.
On February 7, 2006, the victim went to an apartment where several men and three females were drinking and smoking marijuana. During the night, the victim smoked marijuana, drank several shots of vodka, and engaged in various sex acts before being driven home by Williams at approximately 4:00 a.m. On the way, Williams stopped in an alley and had intercourse with the victim.
Later that morning, the victims mother called police after getting the victim up for school and noticing that her eyes were dilated and that she was groggy and incoherent.
Following a preliminary hearing on May 8, 2006, the district attorney filed an information charging Williams and his codefendants with various sexual offenses including the following counts against Williams: two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act upon a child 14 or 15 years of age (counts 18 & 26/Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c))[1]and one count each of pandering a minor under the age of 16 (count 14/ 266i, subd. (b)(1)), sodomy of a person under the age of 16 (count 16/ 266, subd. (b)(2)), and oral copulation of a child under the age of 16 (count 17/ 288a, subd. (b)(2)).
On July 5, 2006, Williams pled no contest to the pandering count in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges and a maximum sentence of three years.
On August 3, 3006, the court denied Williams probation and sentenced him to the mitigated term of three years. The court also ordered Williams to pay restitution and parole revocation fines of $200 and awarded him 265 days of presentence credit consisting of 177 days of presentence actual custody credit and 88 days of presentence conduct credit.
Williamss appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Williams has not responded to this courts invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
The judgment is affirmed.
Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.
Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.
*Before Harris, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Dawson, J.
[1]All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
