Court Opinion

ID: 9409093
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:04:24.081593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.636524
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/14/23 P. v. Cole CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                      B325953

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. NA076626)
          v.

 LARRY WILLIAM COLE,

          Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Chet L. Taylor, Judge. Affirmed.
     James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal; Larry William Cole, in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               _______________________________
       Larry Cole appeals from an order denying his petition for
resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 (former section
1170.95).1 His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no
issues and asking this court to review the record independently to
determine whether there are any arguable issues pursuant to
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Cole filed
a supplemental brief raising issues outside the scope of an 1172.6
resentencing proceeding. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
                          BACKGROUND
I.     Charges, Trial, and Direct Appeal
       Cole was charged with the attempted murder of a police
officer engaged in the performance of duty, and it was alleged he
personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, acted willfully,
deliberately and with premeditation, and committed the crime to
benefit a criminal street gang. At trial, the prosecution’s theory
was that Cole was the sole shooter. The trial court did not
instruct the jury on aiding and abetting or the natural and
probable consequences doctrine.
       The jury found Cole guilty of attempted murder and
sustained the allegation that he personally used and discharged a
firearm. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c).) The
jury found not true the allegations that Cole committed the
attempted murder to benefit a street gang and did so willfully,
deliberately, and with premeditation. The trial court sentenced
Cole to 46 years to life.
       Cole appealed from the judgment of conviction, contending
among other things that the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss or bifurcate trial on the gang allegation. In an

        1   Undesignated statutory references will be to the Penal
Code.

                                    2
unpublished opinion, we rejected this contention and affirmed the
judgment. (People v. Cole (May 2, 2011, B222449) [nonpub.
opn.].)
II.    Petition for Resentencing
       On March 3, 2022, Cole, representing himself, filed a
petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now
renumbered section 1172.6), which permits a person convicted of
attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine to petition the court to have the conviction vacated and
to be resentenced if the person could not presently be convicted of
attempted murder due to changes to section 188 or 189 made
effective January 1, 2019. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).)
       Using a preprinted form, Cole checked boxes corresponding
to the statutory requirements for a facially sufficient petition for
resentencing under former section 1170.95, subdivision (b) (and
current section 1172.6, subd. (b)), and in doing so declared he was
convicted under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.
He also checked the box requesting appointment of counsel.
       The trial court appointed counsel for Cole. The district
attorney filed a response to the petition, arguing Cole could not
make a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the
statute because he was not prosecuted under a natural and
probable consequences theory. The district attorney attached to
the response our opinion in Cole’s direct appeal of his conviction
and the jury verdicts and instructions.
       Cole, by his appointed counsel, filed a reply brief, arguing
he made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief under the
statute because he filed a facially sufficient petition for
resentencing that alleged he was prosecuted for attempted
murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

                                 3
The reply brief did not reference the jury instructions attached to
the district attorney’s response.
       On September 15, 2022, pursuant to section 1172.6,
subdivision (c), the trial court held a hearing to determine
whether Cole made a prima facie case for relief. After giving
counsel for the parties an opportunity to present argument, the
trial court denied the petition, finding Cole was ineligible for
relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. The court
explained, “This was a single-defendant case. The people did not
proceed under a felony murder theory, nor did they proceed under
a natural and probable consequences theory.”
III. Present Appeal
       Cole filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying
his petition for resentencing, and we appointed counsel for him.
As noted, counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to
review the record independently to determine whether any
arguable issues exist pursuant to Delgadillo. Counsel served a
copy of the brief on Cole and informed him of his right to file a
supplemental brief.
       On May 5, 2023, we sent a letter to Cole, informing him
that his counsel had filed a Delgadillo brief raising no issues and
that he could submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any
grounds for the appeal, or contentions or arguments he wanted
this court to consider. We also informed Cole that if no
supplemental brief or letter was timely filed we may dismiss the
appeal as abandoned.
       Cole filed a supplemental brief in which he mentions
nothing about resentencing but requests leave to move for a new
trial under section 1109 (trial on gang allegations must be

                                4
bifurcated upon request), which became effective on January 1,
2022.
                           DISCUSSION
       As relevant here, section 1172.6 allows a defendant
convicted of murder to seek resentencing based on changes to the
Penal Code effected under Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg.
Sess.; Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4). (People v. Patton (2023) 89
Cal.App.5th 649, 655.) That bill “limited accomplice liability
under the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and
probable consequences doctrine as it relates to murder.” (Ibid.)
The threshold question in a section 1172.6 proceeding, therefore,
is whether the defendant was convicted under a theory of murder
now invalid under Senate Bill No. 1437. The trial court
concluded that Cole was not convicted under a felony murder or
natural and probable consequences theory, or any theory based
on imputed malice, and therefore was ineligible for resentencing.
Cole does not contest the court’s finding.
       In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court held that when
appointed counsel in a criminal matter “finds no arguable issues
to be pursued on appeal: (1) counsel should file a brief informing
the court of that determination, including a concise recitation of
the facts bearing on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court
should send, with a copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the
defendant, informing the defendant of the right to file a
supplemental letter or brief and that if no letter or brief is filed
within 30 days, the court may dismiss the matter.” (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.)
       Because this is an appeal from a denial of postconviction
relief under former section 1170.95, we are not required to
conduct an independent review of the record as we would be in a

                                 5
direct appeal from a criminal conviction. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) When a defendant files a supplemental
brief, however, we are “required to evaluate the specific
arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.”
(Id. at p. 232.)
       Here, we decline counsel’s request that we independently
review the record, as nothing before us suggests such an exercise
is necessary. However, Cole has filed a supplemental brief at our
invitation.
       In that brief, Cole requests leave to move for a new trial
under section 1109. This issue has no relation to his petition for
resentencing, however, and is therefore beyond the scope of this
appeal. A section 1172.6 proceeding is not an opportunity to
challenge all aspects of a conviction, only the aspects implicated
by Senate Bill No. 1437. Having raised no arguments pertaining
to Penal Code amendments under Senate Bill No. 1437, Cole’s
challenge necessarily fails.
                           DISPOSITION
       The order denying Cole’s petition for resentencing is
affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.            BENDIX, J.

                                6