California v. Williams
Annotate this CaseDefendant Steven Mark Williams appealed a trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act). He contended the trial court abused its discretion in finding that resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety and the court erred in failing to apply the definition of unreasonable risk to public safety enacted by Proposition 47 (The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014). The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court’s failure to consider when, if ever, defendant would be released if the petition was granted was an abuse of discretion. On remand, the court must first determine which of defendant’s crimes were eligible for resentencing. If one or more of defendant’s crimes are eligible for resentencing, only then may the court determine whether resentencing poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. “In making that determination, the trial court must take into account when defendant could be released if the petition is granted and whether that release is contingent on considerations of public safety.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.