People v. Cooper, 54 Cal.App.5th 106

In 1994 Trenda Whitten and her fetus were brutally killed; Richard Cooper was charged with two counts of murder and enhancements. He pleaded no contest in 1998 to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 15 years to life.
In 2019, after Senate Bill No. 1437 (which narrowed felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences liability) took effect, Cooper filed a Penal Code §1170.95 petition using a form, asserting he pleaded in lieu of trial because he feared conviction under those doctrines and requesting appointed counsel.
The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointing counsel, relying on the 1994 preliminary-hearing transcript to find Cooper ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law.
Cooper appealed, arguing the court erred by not appointing counsel upon filing of a facially sufficient petition requesting counsel.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held that under §1170.95(c) a petitioner who files a facially sufficient petition requesting counsel is entitled to appointed counsel and that the trial court’s factfinding based on the preliminary hearing (a probable-cause proceeding) was improper and prejudicial in this case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the right to appointed counsel under §1170.95(c) attach?	Counsel need not be appointed until after an initial prima facie screening; appointment only if court cannot determine ineligibility as a matter of law.	Counsel must be appointed upon filing of a facially sufficient petition that requests counsel.	Right to counsel attaches when a facially sufficient petition requesting counsel is filed.
May a court resolve §1170.95 petitions by relying on preliminary-hearing transcripts and deny without appointing counsel?	Yes; the court can screen the record of conviction and deny petitions that are ineligible as a matter of law.	No; relying on probable-cause preliminary-hearing testimony to make dispositive factual findings is improper without counsel and briefing.	Trial court erred by resolving contested factual issues based on the preliminary hearing without counsel; such factfinding is impermissible at the prima facie stage here.
Was the failure to appoint counsel prejudicial?	Any error was harmless because the record (enhancements, plea colloquy) shows Cooper was ineligible as a matter of law.	Prejudicial: the record does not conclusively show ineligibility; lack of counsel prevented Cooper from developing the record or challenging preliminary-hearing evidence.	Prejudicial: record does not conclusively establish ineligibility; reversal and remand for appointment of counsel and further proceedings is required.

People v. Lewis, 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (addressed timing of counsel under §1170.95)
People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (interpreted §1170.95(c) to allow initial court screening prior to appointment of counsel)
People v. Tarkington, 49 Cal.App.5th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discussed chronology and briefing obligations under §1170.95)
People v. Drayton, 47 Cal.App.5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (held trial court may not engage in dispositive factfinding based on preliminary-hearing testimony)
People v. Lamoureux, 42 Cal.App.5th 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (explained SB 1437’s changes to felony-murder and natural-and-probable-consequences doctrines)
People v. DeJesus, 38 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (describes preliminary hearing as a probable-cause, not guilt, determination)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (standard for harmless-error review in criminal cases)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (reasonable-probability harmless-error standard)