People v. Cooks CA2/4

Filed 12/23/25 P. v. Cooks CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B342880

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23AVCF00079 SHAWN COOKS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert G. Chu, Judge. Affirmed. Michele A. Douglass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this criminal appeal from a plea of no contest, where appellate counsel has filed a no-issues brief asking us to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), we affirm the judgment. In 2024, appellant Shawn Cooks pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury while confined in state prison. (Pen. Code, § 4501, subd. (b).) He also admitted that he sustained a prior strike conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)–(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) According to the probation officer’s report, state prison officers were monitoring meals when they observed Cooks and a second prisoner assault a third prisoner. When the officers activated the yard alarm and ordered Cooks and the second prisoner to cease their actions and assume a prone position, the third prisoner produced a weapon and assaulted Cooks with it. The officers then deployed chemical agents and impact munitions to stop the fight and prevent further injuries. After Cooks pled no contest and admitted the prior strike, the trial court sentenced him to a low term of two years, doubled to four years under the “Three Strikes” law. Cooks appealed. On August 20, 2025, Cooks’s counsel filed a brief raising no issues on appeal and asking us to review the record independently. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Cooks did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing. We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-279; Wende, at p. 443.) We therefore affirm the judgment.

2