People v. Cooper CA2/7
Filed 8/29/16 P. v. Cooper 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B267783
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA027451) v.
CRAIG COOPER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed.
Emily Lowther Brough, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Craig Cooper petitioned in February 2015 to recall his current felony sentence for violating Health and Safety Code section 11350, subdivision (a), possession of cocaine, and to request resentencing as a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18).1 On March 13, 2015 the trial court denied the petition, finding Cooper was ineligible for resentencing under Proposition 47. On October 30, 2015 Copper filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s March 13, 2015 order.2
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Cooper on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On May 9, 2016 we advised Cooper he had 30 days to submit any arguments or raise any issues he wanted us to consider. The same day, we received an eight-page, hand-printed supplemental brief with attached exhibits. Cooper appears to argue that the record does not support the trial court’s finding Cooper is ineligible for Proposition 47 relief and that section 1170.18 is ambiguous and unconstitutional. “Proposition 47, an initiative measure the electorate passed in November 2014, reduced certain drug-related and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The measure also provided that, under certain circumstances, a person who had received a felony sentence for one of the reduced crimes could be resentenced and receive a
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)