Filed 7/18/13 P. v. Williams CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062225
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE317744)
PAUL KENNETH WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles W.
Ervin, Judge. Affirmed.
Johanna R. Pirko, for Defendant and Appellant, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General for the Plaintiff and Respondent.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Paul Kenneth Williams pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of violating a
court order (Pen. Code, § 273.6, subd. (a)), and a felony charge of possession of a
controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). In exchange, the People
dismissed charges that he made a criminal threat (Pen. Code, § 422), and committed
cruelty to three different children by endangering their health (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd.
(b)). Under People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247 (Cruz), Williams agreed to waive his
right to withdraw his guilty plea if he was arrested for another crime. At a hearing, the
court questioned Williams regarding the factual basis for the plea, and he pleaded guilty
as noted on the plea form.
The court declined Williams's request to reduce the felony count to a
misdemeanor, noting that in the interim period between the plea bargain hearing and
sentencing, Williams was arrested "on another domestic violence type charge," thus
implicating Williams's Cruz waiver. The court suspended imposition of sentence and
granted Williams probation for three years on condition that he serve 365 days in jail and
pay certain fines. Williams appeals. We affirm.
Appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below.
Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks that this court review the record for
error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to possible but not arguable issues of
whether: (1) Williams's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; (2) there was a proper
factual basis for the plea; (3) the trial court abused its discretion in concluding Williams's
2
new arrest constituted a "clear and obvious Cruz waiver violation"; and (4) the court
abused its discretion in denying Williams's motion to reduce the felony conviction to a
misdemeanor.
We granted Williams permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not
responded. Our review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues
referred to by appellate counsel and the circumstances surrounding the court's taking of
the plea, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has
represented Williams on this appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
4