P. v. Williams

Filed 4/29/19 P. v. Williams CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ADRIAN DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS,
Defendant and Appellant.
__________________________________
B290706
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA465517)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Norman J. Shapiro, Judge. Reversed in part,
remanded with directions.
Tasha G. Timbadia, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Charles J. Sarosy,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________

-- 1 of 5 --

2
A jury convicted Adrian Williams of assault and criminal
threats. On appeal, he contends his convictions should be
reversed to afford him a hearing under recently enacted Penal
Code section 1001.36, which provides criminal defendants
suffering from specified mental disorders an opportunity to enter
a mental health diversion program in lieu of trial.1 In support of
this argument, Williams points to evidence in the record that he
suffers from a serious mental illness. We hold that section
1001.36 applies retroactively to Williams’s case and entitles him
to a hearing to determine his eligibility for a mental health
diversion program. On this ground, we conditionally reverse the
judgment and remand the case to allow the trial court to conduct
a diversion eligibility hearing.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 11, 2018, Jorge Guevera was working at a
Shell gas station when Williams entered the store and started
heating up food in the microwave. Guevera told Williams he
could not use the microwave, but Williams continued to do so.
Guevera unplugged the microwave, after which Williams threw
the microwave on the floor. Williams then grabbed Guevera in a
chokehold, and yelled that he was going to stab Guevera.
Williams cut Guevera in the back of the head with a razor blade,
inflicting a 3-inch laceration. Guevera punched Williams in the
face, and Williams left the store. Williams was soon after
apprehended by the police.
A jury convicted Williams of aggravated assault (§ 245,
subd. (a)(1); count 1) and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a);
count 2). The jury found true the allegations that as to count 1,
Williams inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
as to count 2, he used a deadly or dangerous weapon (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)). On June 6, 2018, the trial court sentenced Williams
to four years in state prison on count 1 plus a consecutive term of
three years for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court
stayed the sentence on count 2. Williams timely appealed. Later
that month, the Legislature enacted section 1001.36 providing for
pretrial diversion for certain defendants who qualify to receive
mental health treatment in lieu of prosecution.
DISCUSSION
Williams contends that he is entitled to a pretrial hearing
on diversion under recently enacted section 1001.36 because the
Legislature intended the statute to apply to cases pending on
appeal. As Williams notes, the record shows that the Los Angeles
Consolidated Criminal History System labeled him as “mentally
disturbed,” and the probation report noted that the victim, who
was familiar with Williams, believed Williams had “mental
problems.” Respondent counters that the language of subdivision
(c) of section 1001.36 demonstrates that the Legislature intended
the enactment to operate prospectively only, i.e., the enactment
would not apply to cases such as this one in which there has
already been an adjudication.
This issue has been addressed by the recent case of People
v. Frahs (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 784 (Frahs) which held that
section 1001.36 applies retroactively.2 Our Supreme Court, in
turn, has granted review of Frahs, and will have the final say on
2 Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1) [“Pending review and
filing of the Supreme Court’s opinion, unless otherwise ordered
by the Supreme Court under (3), a published opinion of a Court of
Appeal in the matter has no binding or precedential effect, and
may be cited for potentially persuasive value only.”].)

-- 3 of 5 --

4
the matter. (People v. Frahs (Dec. 27, 2018, S252220).) For now,
we agree with Frahs that section 1001.36 applies retroactively.
As in Frahs, Williams’s case is not yet final on appeal and
the record affirmatively discloses that he appears to meet at least
one of the threshold requirements. We will therefore remand to
allow the trial court to determine whether Williams should
benefit from diversion under section 1001.36. (Frahs, supra,
27 Cal.App.5th at p. 791.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is conditionally reversed and the matter is
remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct a diversion
eligibility hearing under section 1001.36 within 90 days from the
remittitur. If the trial court determines that Williams is not
eligible for diversion, then the court shall reinstate the judgment.
If the trial court determines that Williams is eligible for
diversion but, in exercising its discretion, the court further
determines diversion is not appropriate under the circumstances,
then the court shall reinstate the judgment.
If the trial court determines that Williams is eligible for
diversion and, in exercising its discretion, the court further
determines diversion is appropriate under the circumstances,
then the court may grant diversion. If Williams successfully
completes diversion, the court shall dismiss the charges in
accordance with section 1001.36, subdivision (e). If, however,

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Williams does not successfully complete diversion, the trial court
shall reinstate the judgment.
RUBIN, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
BAKER, J.
KIM, J.

-- 5 of 5 --