People v. Cowains CA2/6

Filed 1/18/24 P. v. Cowains CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329466 (Super. Ct. No. TA101974) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ADRON CONSAHUNDRI COWAINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Adron Consahundri Cowains appeals the order of the trial court denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona. We affirm. Procedural Background2 Appellant was convicted by jury of attempted, premediated, deliberate murder. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664.) The jury found that appellant caused great bodily injury by personally using a firearm. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subd. (b),(d).) In April 2000, he was sentenced to a term of life for the attempted murder, and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm use. In 2022, appellant filed a section 1172.6 form petition for resentencing in which he checked the boxes alleging that an information had been filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or other theory under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime; that he was convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter; and that he could not presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because of the changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. Appellant also checked the box indicating that he has presented a facially sufficient petition and requests the appointment of counsel. The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel or requesting briefing because appellant was not entitled to relief as a matter of law. In a written memorandum of decision, the trial court explained, “The court