Court Opinion

ID: 9955877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:02:22.21474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:34.769674
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/29/24 P. v. Cooper CA1/4
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                          A168877

 v.                                                           (Contra Costa County
 DERRICK ANTOINE COOPER,                                      Super. Ct. No. 05-131866-6)
           Defendant and Appellant.

          This is the fifth appeal arising from defendant Derrick
Antoine Cooper’s 2014 conviction of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187), which this court affirmed in 2017. (People v.
Cooper (Dec. 5, 2017, A143556) [nonpub. opn.] (Cooper I).)
Cooper now appeals an order denying his petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6.2 Appointed appellate counsel

          1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

          2 At the time of the proceedings below, the provision was

codified as section 1170.95. The Legislature renumbered the
provision in 2022 without substantive change as section 1172.6.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) All references in this opinion are to
the current section number.
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216. Cooper filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.
          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
      Cooper I set forth the pertinent facts regarding the murder
of Lincoln Plair, who was killed by Cooper and his codefendants
Antwone Johnson and James Green. (Cooper I, supra, A143556.)
Cooper and his codefendants, who belonged to a street gang,
killed Plair based on their mistaken assumption that he belonged
to a rival gang. (Cooper I, supra, A143556.)
      The two-count information charged each defendant with
murder (§ 187) and participation in a criminal street gang
(§ 182.5). It also alleged two enhancements as to each defendant:
(1) that he committed murder to benefit a gang (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)); and (2) that he, as a principal, personally used and
intentionally and personally fired a gun in a way that caused
death (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–(d), (e)(1)3).
      A jury found Cooper guilty of both counts, and found true
the allegations that the murder was committed for the benefit of,
at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang
(§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that a principal in the murder
personally discharged a firearm, causing great bodily injury and
death to Plair (§ 12022.53, subd. (e)(1)). (Cooper I, supra,

      3 Under section 12022.53, subdivision (e)(1), a defendant

can be vicariously subject to a firearm enhancement even if he
did not himself commit an act triggering the provisions in
subdivisions (b), (c), or (d), if he was a principal in a crime and
violated the gang statute (§ 186.22, subd. (b)), and any principal
in the crime used a gun in violation of subdivisions (b) through
(d).

                                  2
A143556.) The jury found not true the allegation that Cooper
personally used and intentionally and personally discharged the
firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d)). (Cooper I, supra,
A143556.)
        The court sentenced Cooper to a prison term of 25 years to
life on the murder count and a consecutive term of 25 years to life
on the vicarious firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (e)(1))
attached to that count. The court imposed a 10-year term on the
gang enhancement to the murder charge (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1))
and a sentence of 25 years to life on count two (participation in a
criminal street gang), both of which it stayed under section 654.
        In Cooper I, this court affirmed the convictions but
remanded to the trial court for “limited purposes” that included
determining whether to exercise its newly conferred discretion to
strike the vicarious firearm enhancement. (Cooper I, supra,
A143556.) On remand, the court denied the request to strike the
enhancement, and Cooper filed an appeal from the denial.
(People v. Cooper (Oct. 15, 2020, A158253) [nonpub. opn.] (Cooper
II).)
        In Cooper II, we affirmed the trial court’s order declining to
strike the vicarious firearm enhancement. (Cooper II, supra,
A158253.)
        While the appeal in Cooper II was pending, Cooper filed a
petition for relief pursuant to section 1172.6, which the trial court
denied. (People v. Cooper (Mar. 16, 2021, A160515) [nonpub.
opn.] (Cooper III).) The trial court found that Cooper had not
made a prima facie showing that his case fell within section

                                   3
1172.6, and Cooper filed an appeal from that order. (Cooper III,
supra, A160515.)
      This court issued an opinion holding that the trial court’s
order denying Cooper’s section 1172.6 petition had to be vacated
because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on that petition
while the Cooper II appeal was pending. (Cooper III, supra,
A160515.)
      On remand from Cooper III, Cooper filed a new section
1172.6 petition. (People v. Cooper (Sept. 20, 2022, A164299)
[nonpub. opn.] (Cooper IV).) The trial court appointed counsel
and obtained briefing but did not issue an order to show cause or
hold an evidentiary hearing. (Cooper IV, supra, A164299.) After
hearing argument, the judge who had presided at Cooper’s trial
denied the petition, and Cooper again appealed. (Cooper IV,
supra, A164299.)
      Cooper’s appointed appellate counsel filed a “Wende-like”
brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and
Cooper submitted two supplemental briefs. (Cooper IV, supra,
A164299.) This court obtained augmentation of the record to
include the jury instructions from Cooper’s trial and completed a
discretionary, independent review of the record on appeal.
(Cooper IV, supra, A164299.) Our review of the record “revealed
no flaw in the trial court’s analysis or arguable issue that
warrants further briefing.” (Cooper IV, supra, A164299.)
Because none of the arguments Cooper raised in his
supplemental briefs supported reversal or showed that his
murder conviction could not be sustained under current law, we

                                 4
affirmed the order denying Cooper’s section 1172.6 petition.
(Cooper IV, supra, A164299.)
      In July 2023, Cooper filed another petition pursuant to
section 1172.6. The prosecutor filed a brief arguing that Cooper’s
“latest filing seeks to litigate issues which were raised and
rejected previously, and which have already been addressed by
the appellate court.” The prosecutor further explained that its
objection was based “both on the merits (i.e., lack of prima facie
showing) and on res judicata.” (Italics omitted.)
      At a hearing on September 12, 2023, the court summarily
denied Cooper’s section 1172.6 petition. The court issued a
written order the same day, stating that Cooper was “not entitled
to another petition, as his first petition was heard, and there
have been no changes to the law which would entitle him to
another petition.” The trial court further noted that “even if [it]
were to consider another petition, the Court of Appeal ha[d]
already ruled that he is not entitled to resentencing, and that
ruling is binding on this court.” Cooper timely filed a notice of
appeal.
                          DISCUSSION
      Cooper’s appointed counsel filed a brief with this court
pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, stating
that upon a thorough review of the case record, counsel found no
arguable issues. Cooper filed a handwritten supplemental brief,
which is difficult to follow, but appears to challenge his

                                  5
convictions and the vicarious firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53,
subd. (e)(1)).4
      Petitions for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 are
reserved for persons “convicted of felony murder or murder under
the natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory
under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that
person’s participation in a crime.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) As we
have previously stated, this case involved neither felony murder
nor the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (Cooper IV,
supra, A164299.) Instead, Cooper “was a direct accomplice in a
first degree deliberate and premeditated murder,” and the jury
found that he acted with malice. (Cooper IV, supra, A164299.)
      Cooper’s supplemental brief raises the same issues
reviewed by this court in his last appeal. (See Cooper IV, supra,
A164299.) These issues were addressed at length in Cooper IV,
and Cooper cites no authority entitling him to relitigate a section
1172.6 petition when one was previously denied on the merits.
Even if we were to consider the substance of Cooper’s
supplemental brief, nothing in it persuades us that the trial court
erred, or that we erred in finding that his murder conviction

      4 To the extent Cooper intends to challenge his convictions

or sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel or
actual innocence, such arguments would be more appropriately
brought, if at all, in a habeas petition rather than on an appeal
after the denial of a section 1172.6 petition. To be clear, we
express no opinion on whether a habeas petition by Cooper would
be either timely or successful; we note only that Cooper’s brief
references to ineffective assistance and actual innocence have no
bearing on his appeal founded upon section 1172.6.

                                 6
could still be sustained under current law. (Cooper IV, supra,
A164299.)
                             DISPOSITION
       The order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition is
affirmed.

                                           BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.
SMILEY, J.

People v. Cooper (A168877)

       
        Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                  7