People v. Cooper CA5

── People v. Cooper CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/4/26 P. v. Cooper CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F088878 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F21903271) v. KEVIN ARCHIE COOPER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M. Harrell, III, Judge. Joshua L. Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Dina Petrushenko and Corinne D. Heinstein, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION A jury convicted defendant Kevin Archie Cooper and his son of second degree murder and found true an enhancement allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily harm and death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life for second degree murder plus 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement. The court also held defendant and his son are jointly and severally liable for $5,439.79 in restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board for the victim’s funeral expenses. On appeal, defendant claims the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding pictures of the victim holding guns and by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the right to use reasonable force to eject a trespasser (CALCRIM No. 3475). He also contends the cumulative effect of such errors prejudiced him. Defendant also argues the victim restitution award for expenses paid by the Victim Compensation Board violates his right to due process and should be reversed because the prosecution did not present bills to establish the amount paid as required pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(4)(B). Additionally, he asserts the abstract of judgment should be corrected to reflect he was sentenced to 40 years to life (rather than 50 years to life). The People disagree with defendant’s first three contentions but they agree the restitution order should be reversed, the case should be remanded for a new restitution hearing, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected. We vacate the section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(4)(B) restitution order, remand the matter for the trial court to hold a new restitution hearing, direct the court to correct the abstract of judgment, and otherwise affirm the judgment. 2.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant and his son, Aaron Cooper (Aaron) were charged with the murder of Michael Williams. It was further alleged defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury or death within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Before trial, the court consolidated defendant and Aaron’s cases. The trial was heard by a separate jury for each defendant. Prosecution Evidence Christopher Gayer testified he met Williams through wo