People v. Williams CA2/5

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant initially raised two arguments: (1) the court failed to exercise discretion informed and guided by the spirit of the law; (2) the court violated his constitutional right to due process by not affording him notice and an opportunity to be heard. After the Attorney General responded to these arguments by asserting there was no error, defendant filed a supplemental opening brief. In his supplemental brief, defendant added arguments that the court erred by: (3) failing to afford him the assistance of counsel; (4) not setting forth the reasons for its resentencing decision on the record. In addition, he argued that a recently enacted law, AB 1540 (effective January 1, 2022), clarified the law in this area and would apply retroactively to his case. He sought remand for a hearing under the new procedures established by AB 1540. The Attorney General filed its response to the supplemental opening brief on November 22, 2021. It declined to concede retroactive application of AB 1540. However, it acknowledged that the “new version of the statute substantially alters the framework for recall and resentencing,” and that there were “substantial questions about…