People v. Lawrie CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN160404
- Trial judge
- Kelly C. Mok
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied Lawrie's second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible because he was the actual killer and not prosecuted as an aider and abettor. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of second petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The trial court again denied the petition on the grounds Lawrie was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor, he was the actual killer and that the jury was not instructed on theories of liability under the felony murder rule or the doctrine of natural and probable consequences.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The court correctly applied the statutory requirement that a petitioner must have been convicted of murder under a theory of felony murder or natural and probable consequences to be eligible for relief under section 1172.6. Since Lawrie was convicted as the actual killer who personally discharged the firearm, he is statutorily ineligible for resentencing under this specific provision, making the trial court's denial correct. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief when no meritorious issues are identified, requiring independent review by the court.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues for the court's independent review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Delgadillo protocol for independent review when counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The substantive conclusion is supported by the undisputed fact that Lawrie was the actual killer, which renders him ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Matthew Lawrie's second Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition because he was the actual killer, was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor, and the jury was never instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences. The Court of Appeal, after a Delgadillo/Wende independent review and consideration of Lawrie's pro. per. supplemental brief, found no arguable issue and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of second section 1172.6 petition on the ground Lawrie was the actual killer, was not tried as an aider and abettor, and the jury was not instructed on felony murder or natural and probable consequences, making him ineligible for relief as a matter of law“He does not dispute that he was the actual killer. Lawrie was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor because he was the actual perpetrator of the crime. The jury found he personally and intentionally shot and killed the victim.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief is available only to defendants convicted under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or another theory imputing malice; an actual killer found by the jury to have personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) was convicted on a theory of actual malice that remains valid, so the record of conviction conclusively refutes a prima facie showing. The opinion does not state a standard of review, but the eligibility question on this undisputed record is legal and the result follows regardless of standard. Lawrie's reliance on aider-and-abettor special-circumstance cases is beside the point because he was the perpetrator, and the same issue was already decided against him on the first petition. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must evaluate any supplemental brief filed by the defendant and may, in its discretion, conduct an independent review of the record
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal lacks merit should identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may rely on the record of conviction, including jury findings, to deny a petition only where the record conclusively establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without factfinding; the opinion implicitly applies this rule but does not cite it (note: the correct citation is 11 Cal.5th 952)
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly followed Delgadillo by addressing Lawrie's supplemental brief and explaining why aider-and-abettor cases cannot help a defendant the jury found personally and intentionally shot the victim. It reaches the plainly correct result but does not cite the statutory text or People v. Lewis to frame the prima facie standard under which an actual-killer finding in the record of conviction forecloses relief.
Opinion
Filed 6/7/23 P. v. Lawrie 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, D080989
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN160404)
MATTHEW A. LAWRIE, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly C. Mok, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew A. Lawrie, in pro. per.; and Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from the denial of a second petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The denial of the first petition was affirmed by this court. Nothing has changed from the time of the first petition. Appellant remains as the actual killer of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. the victim, and he also remains ineligible for resentencing under this statute. We will again affirm the denial of this successive petition. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2006, a jury convicted Matthew A. Lawrie of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found he personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Lawrie was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison. Lawrie appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Lawrie (Jan. 16, 2009, D050998).) In 2019, Lawrie filed his first petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds Lawrie was the actual killer and was therefore not eligible for relief. This court affirmed the order denying relief in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Lawrie (Mar. 13, 2020, D076835).) In 2022, Lawrie filed his second petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court again denied the petition on the grounds Lawrie was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor, he was the actual killer and that the jury was not instructed on theories of liability under the felony murder rule or the doctrine of natural and probable consequences.2 Lawrie filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel has summarized the facts and procedure and notified Lawrie of his right to file a 2 The facts of the offense are summarized in our previous opinions. We will not include another summary here. 2 brief. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We have conducted an independent review of the record consistent with the procedure in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the trial court err in finding that section 1172.6 does not apply to Lawrie’s murder conviction? Lawrie filed a two page document in which he argues cases relating to liability of aiders and abettors for certain special circumstances allegations do not support the trial court’s findings. He does not dispute that he was the actual killer. Lawrie was not prosecuted as an aider and abettor because he was the actual perpetrator of the crime. The jury found he personally and intentionally shot and killed the victim. Thus, he is not eligible for resentencing under this particular statute. Our review of the record has not identified any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lawrie on this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying Lawrie’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12