Court Opinion

ID: 9397854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-26 18:03:32.742641+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:28.174544
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/26/23 P. v. Goodwin CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

 THE PEOPLE,                                                            B321263

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. BA150991)
           v.

 MARK ANTHONY GOODWIN,

           Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

       Defendant Mark Anthony Goodwin appeals from the trial
court’s order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing
under Penal Code1 section 1172.6.2 Having found no error, we
affirm the court’s order.
                          BACKGROUND3
       On the night of May 22, 1997, Goodwin and his girlfriend
Teresa Costello-Kogon were engaged in a heated argument
outside a Los Angeles hotel. At one point, Goodwin grabbed
Costello-Kogon by the neck, knocked her to the ground, and
kicked her in the head three or more times with work boots.
When a friend came outside to help Costello-Kogon, Goodwin
kicked her in the head again. He appeared drunk.
       A deputy medical examiner testified Costello-Kogon died as
a result of blunt force trauma to the head that could have been
caused by someone wearing construction boots. DNA analysis
established that Costello-Kogon’s blood was found on Goodwin’s
boots.
       On January 12, 1998, a jury convicted Goodwin of second
degree murder (§ 187) for which he was ultimately sentenced to a
state prison term of 15 years to life.4

      1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
      2 Goodwin petitioned the court pursuant to section 1170.95.
Effective June 30, 2022, that section was renumbered section
1172.6, with no change in the text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
      3 The following facts are drawn from this court’s
unpublished decision in Goodwin’s direct appeal from his
conviction. (People v. Goodwin (Jan. 31, 2000, B118904) [nonpub.
opn.].)
      4Goodwin was also convicted and sentenced for resisting
an executive officer within the meaning of section 69 and having
admitted to serving two prior prison terms for felonies within the
meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). However, this court

                                  2
       After Goodwin’s conviction, the Legislature passed Senate
Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1437),
amending sections 188 and 189, the laws pertaining to felony
murder and murder under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine “to ensure that murder liability is not
imposed on a person who is not the actual killer, did not act with
the intent to kill, or was not a major participant in the
underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human
life.” (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) The Legislature also
added what is now section 1172.6, which provides a procedure for
those convicted of murder to seek retroactive relief if they could
not now be convicted under the amended laws. (People v. Lewis
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957.)
       On May 9, 2022, Goodwin filed a one-page section 1172.6
petition, alleging he was convicted of murder following a trial, a
crime for which he could not presently be convicted because of
changes in sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019.
Attached to the petition was a typed letter and other documents
addressed to the trial court.
       At the hearing on the petition, Goodwin was not present,
but he was represented by appointed counsel. The People
opposed the petition. After reviewing the petition, the jury
instructions, and the verdict forms, the trial court summarily
denied the petition, explaining that Goodwin was convicted of
second degree murder as the actual killer of the victim. Goodwin
was not tried and the jury was not instructed on the theories of

reversed the conviction and sentencing enhancements in response
to Goodwin’s direct appeal. (People v. Goodwin, supra, B118904.)
On remand, he was resentenced to 15 years to life.

                                 3
felony murder or natural and probable consequences. His
murder conviction was affirmed on appeal. (People v. Goodwin,
supra, B118904.)
       Goodwin filed a timely notice of appeal from the order of
denial.
                           DISCUSSION
       After examination of the record, appellate counsel filed an
opening brief raising no issues. Where appellate counsel finds no
arguable issues in an appeal that is not the first appeal after
conviction, we are not required to conduct an independent review
of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its
federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]. (People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226.) However, even if we do
not independently review the record to identify unraised issues in
such a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his own
supplemental brief or letter and we evaluate any specific
arguments raised. (See Delgadillo, at pp. 231–232.)
       Here, counsel provided Goodwin with a copy of the record
on appeal, informed him of his right to file his own supplemental
brief, and that the Court of Appeal may dismiss his appeal as
abandoned if he does not do so.
       On April 18, 2023, we notified Goodwin of counsel’s brief
and gave him 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any
grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished
to be considered. On April 28, 2023, the letter was returned
bearing a stamp indicating “inmate paroled.” Goodwin has failed
to apprise this court or appellate counsel of his new address.
       We affirm the trial court’s order based upon a limited
review, as “appellate courts can often readily confirm that a

                                4
defendant is ineligible for relief as a matter of law without
conducting an independent review of the entire record.” (People
v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230.) We have taken
judicial notice of the appellate record in People v. Goodwin,
supra, B118904, and we have reviewed the verdicts rendered
against Goodwin, the jury instructions, and the procedural
history set forth in the appellate opinion. During the prima facie
review, if the record of conviction contains facts refuting the
allegations of the petition as a matter of law, no prima facie
showing can be made, and the petition is properly denied.
(People v. Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.)
      Here, there is no evidence that someone besides Goodwin
was involved in the murder of Costello-Kogon. As the jury found,
he acted alone as the actual killer and stomped her to death.
Accordingly, Goodwin is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6
as a matter of law.
                           DISPOSITION
      The order denying the Penal Code section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

____________________________________________________________
     LUI, P. J.   ASHMANN-GERST, J.         HOFFSTADT, J.

                                5