Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Charles Williams

January 30, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
CHARLES WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 10F03247)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nicholson , Acting P. J.

P. v. Williams

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A personnel dispute between two pimps ended in the death of one, Marcel Hatch, at the hand of the other, Charles Williams, during a drive-by assassination. A jury convicted Williams of first degree murder and various sentence enhancements., including intentional discharge of a firearm causing death, resulting in a state prison term of 50 years to life.

On appeal, Williams, hereafter, defendant, contends the trial court erred prejudicially when it failed to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Prosecution Case-in-Chief

In May 2010, Marcel Hatch lived with Ashanti Lewis and Dominique Phillips. Hatch was a pimp; Lewis was one of his prostitutes, and Phillips was his girlfriend and a former prostitute. Hatch's prostitution business was located at a motel on Auburn Boulevard in Sacramento.

On May 6, 2010, Hatch spit at prostitute Candence Mays*fn1 and fired his gun in the air. Defendant was Candence's pimp and her boyfriend. The next day, defendant went to the motel to confront Hatch about the incident. They got into a fight over their "sweating" of each other's prostitutes.*fn2 Hatch beat defendant severely and then took defendant's cellular telephone and other items. Thereafter, defendant picked himself up and drove away. At home that night, his face was swollen and he was crying. He told Candence that Hatch had taken his cellular telephone, a radio, and a television out of defendant's car.

The following day, May 8, 2010, defendant and Candence went to her parents' home in North Highlands. Candence's brothers Demetrius, Lorenzo, and Kenyatta were present. Defendant's face was still visibly injured from the beating. The brothers asked who had injured him and encouraged him to "do something to" the perpetrator. Candence did not hear defendant make any response.

After they talked a while, defendant, the brothers, their sister Brandy, and Demetrius's girlfriend Jenna left in Brandy's sport utility vehicle (SUV). They arrived at the motel around 4:00 or 5:00 p.m., entered the driveway and drove past prostitute Lewis, who was standing outside her motel room door at the time. Lewis exchanged glances with the occupants of the SUV as it passed. Lewis initially thought the SUV carried a potential "date." The occupants of the SUV drove to the end of the motel, made a U-turn, and came back. Defendant was looking for Hatch, and he recognized Lewis as one of Hatch's prostitutes. Hatch was not at the motel at the time, so the occupants of the SUV drove off and returned to North Highlands.

About a half hour later, defendant, Demetrius, Kenyatta, Lorenzo, and Brandy left again, with Brandy driving the SUV. Demetrius had a "long gun," his father's AK-47, which he had retrieved from the house before they left the second time. Lorenzo had a small gun with him. They went back to the motel. Meanwhile, Hatch had returned to the motel around 6:00 p.m. Lewis was in a room with a customer when she heard several gunshots. She looked out the window through the blinds and saw the SUV. She saw ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.