People v. Williams, A112534 (Cal. App. 10/3/2007), A112534
| Decision Date | 03 October 2007 |
| Docket Number | A112534 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES DELPHIA WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appeal from the Alameda County, Super. Ct. No. H33958.
Defendant James Delphia Williams was charged with first degree residential burglary while armed with a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 12022, subd.(a)1 ), felony assault with a pellet gun as a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), felony assault with a metal pipe as a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), and two counts of attempted murder while armed with a firearm (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 12022, subd. (a)). A jury acquitted defendant of the attempted murder charges, but convicted him of first degree burglary while armed with a firearm, felony assault with a pipe, and misdemeanor assault as a lesser-included offense of assault with a pellet gun. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total term of eight years six months, consisting of an upper term of six years for burglary, as the principal offense, to be served consecutively to terms of one year for the arming allegation enhancement, a subordinate term of one year for the felony assault, and a six-month jail term for the misdemeanor assault.
Defendant seeks dismissal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the burglary and assault convictions. Alternatively, he seeks reversal and a new trial on various grounds, including the abridgement of his right to represent himself, inadequate jury instructions, and sentencing errors. We conclude the matter should be remanded for resentencing on the burglary conviction pursuant to Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 (Blakely) and Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 856 (Cunningham).2 In all other respects, we affirm.
Defendant and Freida Rae Williams (Williams) were married in 1966 and had two children together. After 25 years of marriage, the parties separated in 1990 and divorced in October 1991. Although defendant had initially remained in the former marital house, he later moved out and relocated to southern California. Williams was ultimately awarded title to the house. In late 1991, Williams and Billy Holland moved into the house. In 1995, Williams added Holland, by then her fiancé, as a joint tenant on the deed.
About six years later, in 2001, defendant learned of the change in title on the former marital house. He was upset because if Williams died before Holland, the house would belong to Holland and defendant's children would lose any interest in the house that they would otherwise have acquired by inheritance. Defendant called Williams on the telephone to discuss the children's inheritance and the house. Williams did not know what defendant was talking about, she refused to talk to him, and hung up on him after telling him not to call her. Defendant pursued the issue of the title transfer with his adult children. His daughter told him that she did not care about the house, but defendant was very upset at that time.
In September 2002, defendant disguised himself as a delivery person and went to the former marital house. Holland answered the door but did not recognize defendant as Williams' ex-husband. Defendant indicated he had a package or flowers for Williams, but Holland told him that Williams was not at home. Defendant insisted on coming into the house, which he did for a few minutes and then he left.
Three months later, on December 3, 2002, defendant again went to the former marital house, which gave rise to the current criminal charges. Defendant drove from southern California and, at about 8 p.m., parked his car about 100 yards away from the former marital house. Defendant rang the doorbell, and Williams responded by asking who it was. Defendant replied that he was a neighbor, Allen, and he had a package that had been misdelivered for Holland and Williams. Williams did not know anyone named Allen and because she did not open the door at night, she asked Holland to open the door. When Holland opened the door, defendant immediately sprayed him with pepper spray, and rushed through the door into the house. Holland, whose eyes were blurry from the spray, saw something in defendant's hands so he grabbed defendant's wrists. Holland later realized that defendant had a loaded pellet gun in one hand and pepper spray canister in his other hand.3 A few seconds later, Williams recognized defendant, screamed at him, and hit him on his left shoulder with her fists. As Holland held defendant's arms up in the air, Holland thought Williams said defendant had a gun. When Williams hit defendant, he got "off balance," and the gun flew out of his hand. Defendant fell to the floor, and Holland fell on top of him. Holland saw the gun fall to the floor. Holland yelled to Williams to pick up the gun and call 911, which she did.4 At some point while the men were struggling on the floor, the pepper spray canister fell and Holland saw defendant "as he was reaching for" or "pull[ing] out something that looked like a pipe."5 Defendant dropped the pipe after Holland either twisted defendant's hand or hit him over the head with a cider bottle. After hitting defendant with a cider bottle, Holland grabbed both of defendant's hands and held him until the police arrived about five or six minutes after Williams had called 911.
After arresting defendant, the police found on the floor a spray canister of either mace or pepper spray, and a metal pipe. Williams gave the officers the pellet gun, which was loaded with 8 pellets and a CO2 air cartridge; the police did not determine if the safety was on or off. Defendant's pockets contained a five shot .38 caliber revolver without a safety, loaded with four bullets; a small knife; a lighter; a micro cassette portable tape recorder; two nylon ropes; and extra ammunition for the pellet gun. The police also found on the floor a plastic bag that defendant had brought with him. Some of the bag's contents had fallen on the floor. The bag contained, among other things, precut rope fastened into slipknots with duct tape on the ends, scissors, rubber gloves, a Priority Mail envelope with Williams' name on it, duct tape, and two notes handwritten by defendant. One note was captioned "Have Fun !!!," and listed a number of phrases, including: "Get Diary," "Get Video Tapes and/or pictures of her escapades (Tell her police will get, if not)," "Get security code (be misleading)," "Use tape to break a rear or side window (openable)," "Get cash ($$) only," "Empty Dresser Drawers in Master BR," "Get Money Order(s)." "Take everything with you," "*Tape — used & remaining," "gloves," "plastic bags," "money orders." The second note contained writing on both sides. One side read: "Billy J.—Frieda Pay for the destruction of a Family OR Give him the wealth of the family." (Emphasis in original.)
Defendant did not testify at the trial. As part of the prosecution's case, the jury was shown a videotape of defendant's statement to the police. After he was read and waived his Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436), defendant acknowledged he was being interviewed because he "was in the home of another who has legal title to it, and [he] was in their home and there was a confrontation, and it turned physical and quite frankly, on [his] person were items that were dangerous." Defendant admitted he had a revolver and an air gun to protect himself because he believed his ex-wife had an automatic pistol. Although "maybe the gun itself, [he would] never . . . pull out no matter what," the air gun he could use to get Holland's attention. Defendant had the revolver strictly to use to escape if necessary and for self-defense. Although he stated he did not and would not even pull out the air gun because Holland could get hurt, he later indicated he had the air gun to intimidate Holland and Williams because it looked like a real gun. The only problem with the air gun was that if you hit someone in the wrong place, they could be hurt but "[he] would consider — [he] could shoot" someone in the leg, chest, or stomach, but not in the face. Defendant also admitted that in his other pockets, he had pepper spray, preset rope bindings, something to cut the rope to release Holland and Williams if he had to constrain them, and a pellet gun air cartridge. He also had a cassette recorder in his shirt pocket to record what Williams and Holland said so that they could not later deny it. When asked if he also had "a billy club" and "knife," defendant replied that he had He did not further comment on those items. Defendant also admitted that he had taken into the house a little plastic shopping bag, containing items he thought he might need, including additional rope, things to clean up when he was through, and tape in case somebody was "shootin[g] their mouth off," or "makin[g] too much noise." When asked whether he had written a plan concerning what he would do when he got to the house, defendant initially replied no, but then indicated he thought the police were referring to two or three pieces of paper regarding "things to do," which notes were written about two or three months earlier and were in the plastic bag. After being read and shown the "Have Fun!!!" note, defendant indicated he would rather not comment as to whether the items listed indicated "a plan," he could not explain why some of the items were on the list, and the note was about different things, which was quite common for him. The note that read, "Pay for the destruction of a family," referred to cash, competition, or goods, and the phrase "or give [him] the wealth of the family," referred to the house.
Defendant said he wanted to talk to Williams and Holland about the transfer of title. He had previously...
To continue reading
Request your trial