People v. Cox CA2/5

Filed 2/28/22 P. v. Cox CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B311628

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. TA088018)

JAIME DESIRE COX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Allen Webster, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas T. Ono, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Jaime Cox (defendant) was convicted of the first degree murder of Sergio Bernal. Briefly stated, the conviction was predicated on defendant’s role as the driver in a drive-by shooting she committed with two accomplices; defendant was convicted as a direct aider and abettor, and felony murder and natural and probable consequences murder instructions were not given to the jury. In 2012, defendant was sentenced to 50 years in prison (after a remand following her direct appeal). In 2019, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. After appointing counsel for defendant, the trial court denied the motion, finding she was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The court rejected the defense argument that references to “natural consequences” and “direct, natural, and probable consequence” in CALCRIM Nos. 520 and 3149 (respectively) were the equivalent of an instruction on the natural and probable consequences theory of murder liability. Defendant noticed an appeal from the trial court’s order and this court appointed counsel to represent her. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On September 14, 2021, this court advised defendant she could personally submit any contentions or issues she wished us to consider. We received no response. We have “no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues” in this appeal (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278), but we have reviewed the record nonetheless and are satisfied no arguable issue exists.