People v. Davis CA2/1

Filed 11/22/24 P. v. Davis CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337542

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA068464) v.

COLLIN ROBERT DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

Defendant Collin Robert Davis appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 We find no error and affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Conviction and Direct Appeal In 2008, a jury found Davis guilty of one count of second degree murder and three counts of premeditated attempted murder.2 In 2009, on Davis’s direct appeal, this court reversed one of the three attempted murder convictions for insufficient

1 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. At the time Davis initially filed his resentencing petition, the statute at issue was codified at section 1170.95. The Legislature renumbered the statute as section 1172.6 effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10). For ease of reference, we use the current citation at section 1172.6 throughout this opinion. 2 The jury also found true certain firearm and gang-related allegations. Davis argues we should strike his “gang enhancement [because it] is invalid due to [Assembly Bill No.] 333.” Section 1172.6 addresses whether a defendant could presently be convicted of murder and/or attempted murder despite changes to sections 188 and 189 (§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3)); it does not provide a means to attack a true finding on a gang- related enhancement. In any event, Davis’s conviction became final in 2009, and Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) was not enacted until 2021. (People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206.) Davis makes no cogent argument that Assembly Bill No. 333 applies to convictions that were already final before the bill’s enactment. (Huntsman-West Foundation v. Smith (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1134 [when the appellant does not supply cogent argument supported by legal analysis, reviewing court need “not address the claim.”].)