The People v. Williams CA4/1

FACTS

Ellen Martin was seriously injured when Williams forcibly removed her purse

from her person by breaking the purse straps and dragging her down a flight of steps.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for

error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738.

We granted Williams permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf,

and he has responded. He contends there are reasonably arguable issues raised by the

denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1170.126 that should have been

briefed by his appellate counsel. Those issues include: whether the appropriate trial court

judge ruled on his petition (§ 1170.126, subd. (j); whether the trial court misapplied

sections 667.5, subdivision (c)(8) and 667.5, subdivision (c)(9); whether his poor

2 physical condition should be considered as contrary to the purpose of the three strikes law

(§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)); and whether he would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to

public safety were his sentence…