Reported / Citable
Background
Demondre L. Williams was convicted by a jury in October 2014 of first degree murder and possession of a firearm by a felon, with true firearm and gang enhancements, and was sentenced to 50 years to life plus a determinate term. The victim was shot in September 2012 in an apartment-complex parking lot; a witness had been approached by a man claiming to be from Grape Street, and Williams later admitted gang membership but gave shifting accounts contradicted by prison records and the absence of weapons at the scene.
After Penal Code section 1172.75 was enacted, the trial court struck Williams's prison prior and set resentencing. Beginning in January 2024, Williams filed habeas petitions and CRJA motions under Penal Code section 745 alleging juror bias, discriminatory jury-selection language, and discriminatory charging and sentencing. The superior court denied relief; this court dismissed one appeal and denied another habeas petition. The trial court denied his September 8, 2025 CRJA motion and resentenced him to 50 years to life with a concurrent two-year term, striking the gang enhancements.
Williams appealed in October 2025. Appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Delgadillo, identifying whether the CRJA motion showed a prima facie case of juror or attorney bias or discriminatory charging. Williams filed a supplemental brief, obligating the court to evaluate those arguments in a written opinion. On October 8, 2026, the court denied his rehearing petition and modified the August 31, 2026 opinion without changing the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that none of Williams's three CRJA claims met section 745's prima facie standard: facts that, if true, show a substantial likelihood of a violation, meaning more than a mere possibility but less than more likely than not. Juror No. 12's statement that he 'grew up with racism' did not show bias in context because the juror said he had largely overcome that upbringing and would consider the evidence objectively.
Deputy district attorney Michael Selyem's alleged public statements could not support the claim because he was not the assigned prosecutor, appeared only twice to continue hearings, and there was no indication he worked on the case or interacted with the jury. Williams's single statistic—64 percent versus 42 percent sentence enhancements—was too broad because 'sentence enhancement' covered firearm, gang, prior-history, and Three Strikes enhancements, some already stricken from his sentence.
Unlike Mosby v. Superior Court, which paired expert studies with specific comparable nonminority cases, Williams offered one statistic and no evidence of similarly situated nonminority defendants charged with lesser crimes. The October 8, 2026 modification made that absence a separate stated factor in the prima facie conclusion. The court agreed with the trial court that Williams failed to meet his prima facie burden, declined a second full-record review because the first appeal had Wende review, and affirmed the trial court's orders.
Key Takeaways
- A juror's acknowledgment of childhood exposure to racism does not alone establish CRJA bias when the juror explains that he overcame it and would be objective.
- A claim based on a prosecutor's alleged racist statements needs a connection to the case; two continuance appearances and no jury contact show no more than a mere possibility.
- Countywide enhancement statistics are insufficient for a prima facie CRJA case unless they permit comparison with similarly situated nonminority defendants in similar conduct.
- Under Mosby, a discriminatory-charging prima facie case generally requires controlled statistics plus specific comparable cases of other-race defendants treated less harshly.
- After a no-issue brief and supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal must address the specific arguments in a written opinion, but may decline to repeat a full-record review already done under Wende.
Why It Matters
The published opinion gives practical guidance on the CRJA prima facie threshold: generalized statistics, uninvolved-prosecutor allegations, and rehabilitated-juror claims do not trigger an evidentiary hearing. It reinforces that defendants need case-specific comparative evidence of similarly situated nonminority defendants rather than one undifferentiated enhancement figure.
The decision also confirms the Delgadillo framework in CRJA appeals and records the October 8, 2026 modification: rehearing was denied, the page-10 paragraph was revised to treat the lack of comparative nonminority cases as a separate factor, and the judgment remained unchanged.