Filed 10/7/24 P. v. Terrell CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for 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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEISHON TERRELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B332851

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

BA379758-01)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed.

Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

A trial jury in 2013 convicted defendant and appellant 

Keishon Anthony Terrell (defendant) of the willful, deliberate, 

and premeditated murder of victim Marcus Flagg. The jury also 

found true allegations that the crime was gang-related (Pen. 

Code,1§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that a principal in the crime 

discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury.

2

 Defendant

was sentenced to life in prison for the attempted murder plus a 

consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison for the firearm 

enhancement.

Defendant filed a section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95) 

petition for resentencing in January 2022. The petition argued 

defendant was eligible for resentencing because he was convicted 

of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder under the natural 

and probable consequences doctrine. (See generally People v. 

Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860, 865; People v. Coley (2022) 

77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548 [“[Former s]ection 1170.95 applies by its 

terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and 

probable consequences doctrine”].) The prosecution opposed 

defendant’s petition, contending his jury was not instructed on 

the natural and probable consequences doctrine and he was 

instead convicted on a direct aiding and abetting theory of 

liability. Appointed counsel for defendant filed a response to the 

opposition arguing there was insufficient evidence to support 

finding defendant guilty of attempted murder on a direct aiding 

and abetting theory. 

1 Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the 

Penal Code.

2 The jury found lesser “principal armed” firearm allegations 

(mere discharge and use) true too.
3

The trial court held a hearing and denied defendant’s 

section 1172.6 petition. The court found “the instructions and the 

findings of the jury seem to be unanimous that . . . [defendant] 

had the necessary intent and was a direct aider and abettor in 

the commission of the offense. [¶] Therefore, I’m not finding a 

prima facie showing . . . .”

Defendant noticed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling. 

Defendant’s attorney filed a brief raising no issues and, in an 

accompanying declaration, attested to having reviewed the entire 

appellate record as well as the jury instructions, verdicts, and 

closing arguments from the underlying trial. Defendant’s 

attorney asked this court to process the appeal in accordance 

with the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 

Cal.5th 216. Defendant was thereafter permitted to personally 

file a supplemental brief, which he did on June 24, 2024.

Defendant’s four paragraph supplemental brief complains 

that his attorney did not exercise due diligence in representing 

him by failing to “pursu[e] all avenues to present crucial 

evidence.”3 He does not specify what evidence should have been 

presented, but he maintains the trial court’s denial of an 

evidentiary hearing on his petition “violat[ed] his rights under 

the law and under principles of justice.” He asks this court to 

undertake an independent review of the record.

Defendant’s mostly conclusory complaint about the 

performance of the attorney representing him below, assuming it 

3 Defendant’s supplemental brief specifically faults his 

appointed attorney for failing to “secur[e] time for an 

investigator.” The record belies the assertion; defendant’s 

attorney did seek and obtain the assistance of an investigator.
4

is cognizable in this proceeding, is unsupported by the appellate 

record and fails for that reason. (People v. Carter (2005) 36 

Cal.4th 1114, 1189.) Defendant makes no specific argument for 

why the trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing, 

and we do not attempt to develop the argument ourselves. (See, 

e.g., People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 1006, fn. 17.) We 

decline defendant’s request to independently review the record 

for unidentified error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 232 [“The 

filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an 

independent review of the entire record to identify unraised 

issues”].)
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MOOR, J.

KIM, J.