People v. Cooper CA4/1

Filed 12/20/22 P. v. Cooper CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080896

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF135518)

MEIKEL JEROME COOPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, William S. Lebov, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Yolo Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2008, a jury found Meikel Jerome Cooper guilty of second degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664 & 192), and shooting into an inhabited building (§ 246). The jury

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

found true firearm allegations under sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 12022.5, subdivision (a). The court sentenced Cooper to an indeterminate term of 42 years to life. Cooper appealed and this court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Cooper et al. (Mar. 8, 2011, D058080).) In 2019, Cooper filed his first petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (renumbered 1172.6). The trial court denied the petition finding that Cooper, the actual shooter, was not eligible for relief. This court affirmed the denial of Cooper’s petition in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Cooper (May 13, 2022, D079588).) Undaunted, Cooper filed a second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court again, appointed counsel, reviewed the record and held a hearing. Once again, the court denied the petition. At the hearing the following discussion took place: “[THE PROSECUTOR]: Based upon the materials that I provided [defense counsel]–the jury instructions were in imaging–nothing on natural and probable consequences or felony murder were given to the defendant’s jury. He was the actual shooter. So at this point in time, we’d ask that the petition be denied.