Filed 12/20/22 P. v. Cooper CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MEIKEL JEROME COOPER,

Defendant and Appellant. D080896

(Super. Ct. No. RIF135518 )

APPEAL from a n order of the Superior Court of Riverside County,

William S. Lebov

, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Yolo Sup. Ct. assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, a jury found Meikel Jerome Cooper guilty of second degree

murder (Pen. Code, 1 § 187 , subd. (a) ), attempted voluntary manslaughter

(§§ 664 & 192)

, and shooting into an inhabited building (§ 246). The jury

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

found true firearm allegati ons under sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and

12022.5, subdivision (a). The court sentenced Cooper to an indeterminate

term of 42 years to life.

Cooper appealed and this court affirmed the convictions in an

unpublished opinion

. ( People v. Cooper et al. (Mar. 8, 2011, D058080)

. )

In 2019, Cooper filed his first petition for resentencing under former

section 1170.95 (renumbered 1172.6). The trial court denied the petition

finding that Cooper, the actual shooter, was not eligible for relief. This court
affirmed the denial of Cooper ’ s petition in an unpublished opinion

. ( People v.

Cooper (May 13, 2022, D079588)

. )

Undaunted, Cooper filed a second petition for resentencing under

section 1172.6. The court again, appointed counsel, reviewed the recor d and

held a hearing. Once again, the court denied the petition. At the hearing the

following discussion took place:

“[THE PROSECUTOR]: Based upon the materials that I provided [defense counsel]

– the jury instructions were in imaging

– nothing on natural and probable consequences or felony murder were given to the defendant’s jury. He was the actual shooter. So at this point in time, we’d ask that the petition be denied.

“THE COURT: [Defense counsel]?

“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your honor, I have confirmed everything that [the prosecutor] just referred to, and I’ll
submit.

“THE COURT: Thank you. Petition is denied.”

Once again, Cooper filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of his

resentencing petition.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pu rsuant to People v. Wende (1979)

25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any3

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the

record for error as mandated by Wende . We offered Cooper the opportun ity to

file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion since we

discussed the facts of the offenses in the original appeal.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted

, appellate counsel has filed a Wend e brief and asks

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review

, and

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders ), counsel

has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the

potentia l merits of this appeal : Whether the court erred in relying on the oral

representations of counsel to deny Cooper ’ s petition.

We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and

Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Cooper on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Cooper ’ s second petition for resentencing under

section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

DO, J.