People v. Russell CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Nov 18, 2025 No. B342025Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, holding that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility and that his claims of trial error were not cognizable under the statute.

Issues

Whether the defendant established a prima facie case for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.
Whether claims of trial error regarding jury instructions, expert testimony, and double jeopardy are cognizable in a section 1172.6 petition.
Whether the defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Section 1172.6 does not create a right to a second appeal”

“Because no cognizable legal issues have been raised by appellate counsel or by Russell in his supplemental brief, the order denying the petition for resentencing is affirmed.”

Filed 11/18/25 P. v. Russell CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B342025

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA052902) v.

COREY THEODORE RUSSELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed. Corey Theodore Russell, in pro. per.; Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Corey Theodore Russell appeals from the superior court’s order denying his postjudgment petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 We appointed counsel to represent Russell on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel for Russell filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) that did not identify any arguable issues. Russell then filed a supplemental brief that does not raise any cognizable issues regarding the denial of his section 1172.6 petition. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Russell’s Conviction of Second Degree Murder We described the factual background of this case in Russell’s direct appeal. (See People v. Russell (July 20, 2005, B172100) [nonpub. opn.].) On September 4, 2002, Samuel Briggs was having a family birthday party in Los Angeles. Russell came to the party and became involved in an argument with another partygoer. The two argued loudly, and after a few minutes Russell announced he was “going home to get his shit,” which bystanders understood to mean that Russell was going home to get a weapon. Russell rode away on his bicycle. Approximately 10 minutes later Russell returned to the party. Several party attendees spoke with Russell outside to ensure that there would be no problems and invited Russell back into the party. After Russell responded, “Everything [is] cool,” and the others turned to return to the party, Russell began firing a gun. Briggs was hit in the back by a bullet and died as a result

People v. Russell CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B342025

COREY THEODORE RUSSELL,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

STONE, J.

MARTINEZ, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

AI Brief