Court Opinion

ID: 9919633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 20:03:02.034545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:50.518670
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Cowains CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B329466
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. TA101974)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 ADRON CONSAHUNDRI
 COWAINS,

      Defendant and Appellant.

       Adron Consahundri Cowains appeals the order of the trial
court denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1172.6.1 We appointed counsel to represent
appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel
filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we
follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his own supplemental
brief, in propria persona. We affirm.
                       Procedural Background2
        Appellant was convicted by jury of attempted,
premediated, deliberate murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) The
jury found that appellant caused great bodily injury by personally
using a firearm. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b),(d).)
In April 2000, he was sentenced to a term of life for the
attempted murder, and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for
the firearm use.
       In 2022, appellant filed a section 1172.6 form petition for
resentencing in which he checked the boxes alleging that an
information had been filed against him that allowed the
prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, 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; that he was convicted of
murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter; and that he could
not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder
because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective
January 1, 2019. Appellant also checked the box indicating that
he has presented a facially sufficient petition and requests the
appointment of counsel.
       The trial court summarily denied the petition without
appointing counsel or requesting briefing because appellant was
not entitled to relief as a matter of law. In a written
memorandum of decision, the trial court explained, “The court

      2 The following procedural facts are taken from our
nonpublished opinion on direct appeal, People v. Cowains (Sept.
17, 2001, B143922) [nonpub. opn.] (Cowains)).

                                 2
file reflects that the petitioner was the actual shooter and he was
not convicted under a theory of aiding and abetting anyone else
or a theory of natural and probable consequences. There are no
jury instructions for aiding and abetting or natural and probable
consequences. The jury also found ‘true’ the allegation that the
petitioner fired a handgun.”
                               Discussion
       Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction,
appellant is not entitled to our independent review of the record
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its federal
constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, he is
entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions raised in
his supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 232.)
       We exercised our discretion and conducted an independent
review of the record in accordance with the procedures set forth
in Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232. Based on our review,
we conclude the trial court erred in summarily denying
appellant’s petition prior to appointing counsel, ordering briefing,
or conducting a hearing. (See People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th
952, 957, 967; § 1172.6, subd. (c).) However, the error was
harmless because appellant cannot show there is a reasonable
probability that in the absence of the error, he would have
obtained a more favorable result. (See Lewis, at p. 974.)
       We next consider appellant’s contentions raised in his
supplemental brief.
       First, appellant appears to challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to prove his identity as the shooter. He makes several
arguments in support of this contention, including that the

                                 3
victim, Robert Mitchell, testified to “various different events that
suppose[dly] occurred” on the night of the shooting, was “under
heavy medications,” and has since signed two declarations
proclaiming appellant’s innocence. Appellant also contends the
second witness, Daniel Williams, “gave false testimony” during
the trial when he identified appellant as the shooter. Appellant
claims an additional witness has come forward stating that she
was present during the shooting and that appellant was not the
shooter. He further contends “no physical evidence has ever been
recovered linking [him] to the shooting.”
       Second, appellant contends “the introduction of gangs [and]
misleading testimony ultimately [led] to a conviction.
       We reject appellant’s contentions because they are an
attempt to relitigate issues we have already decided in our
opinion on direct appeal. (See Cowains, supra, B143922; People
v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 549 [a section 1172.6 petition
“is not a means by which a defendant can relitigate issues
already decided”].) Furthermore, the “mere filing of a section
[1172.6] petition does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity
to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting the jury’s findings.” (People v. Farfan (2021)
71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.)
                              Disposition
       The trial court’s order summarily denying appellant’s
petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     YEGAN, Acting P. J.
We concur:
             BALTODANO, J.           CODY, J.

                                 4
                    Kelvin D. Filer, Judge
             Superior Court County of Los Angeles
               ______________________________

     Patricia A. Scott, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.