People v. Williams CA6

── People v. Williams CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Williams CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H052860 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1239917) v. MARTEL CHARROD WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. This is Martel Charrod Williams’s second appeal to this court in connection with his 2013 convictions for robbery and false imprisonment. Williams pleaded no contest to seven counts of robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211) and two counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237) and admitted the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53) and gang enhancement (§ 186.22) allegations attached to the robbery counts, and the gang enhancement allegations attached to the false imprisonment counts. The trial court imposed on Williams an aggregate sentence of 17 years and four months in prison. 1 All further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.  In 2021, the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended recall of Williams’s sentence. The trial court declined to recall his sentence. Williams appealed, and the Attorney General conceded that the court’s order must be reversed and the matter remanded for a rehearing. A different panel of this court agreed and remanded to the trial court to determine whether to recall Williams’s sentence and resentence him under section 1172.1. On remand, the trial court recalled Williams’s sentence and resentenced him. At resentencing, the court imposed on Williams the same sentence, 17 years and four months in prison. On appeal, Williams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the incorrect legal standard under section 1385 and, as a result, failed to consider certain mitigating factors in favor of striking one of the firearm enhancements. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2013, Williams pleaded no contest to seven counts of robbery (§ 211) and two counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237). Williams admitted the firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53) and gang enhancement (§ 186.22) allegations attached to the robbery counts, and the gang enhancement allegations attached to the false imprisonment counts. The trial court sentenced Williams to 17 years and four months in prison. Of those 17 years and four months, the majority (13 years and four months) was imposed on the firearm enhancements attendant to the robbery counts. In 2021, in response to a letter from the Secretary of the CDCR (Secretary) recommending recall of Williams’s sentence, the trial court, without holding a hearing on the matter or appointing counsel for Williams, 2 issued an order in which it declined to recall Williams’s sentence. Williams appealed the order. The Attorney General conceded in this court that, under section 1172.1, subdivision (b)(2) (as amended by the Legislature in 2022), the order must be reversed and the matter remanded. A different panel of this court agreed, reversed the trial court’s order denying recall, and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct further proceedings in accordance with section 1172.1 to determine whether to recall Williams’s sentence and resentence him. (People v. Williams (Oct. 6, 2023, H050287) [nonpub. opn.]