Court Opinion

ID: 9555664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 18:05:07.440275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:06.354076
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/14/23 P. v. Shaw CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

           IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                         E080504
          Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                         (Super.Ct.No. FSB21001810)
 v.
                                                                         OPINION
 JUSTIN MICHAEL SHAW,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Kory E.

Mathewson, Judge. Affirmed.

         John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
          In 2022 a jury convicted Justin Michael Shaw of being a felon in possession of

both a firearm and ammunition. He appealed his judgment. His attorney has filed a brief

under the authority of People v. Wende and Anders v. California1 informing this court

they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review

of the record. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and

affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND

          In May 2021, Shaw’s wife told police he physically abused her. An officer

stationed himself across the street from Shaw’s apartment to look for him. The officer

saw Shaw exit the apartment complex and walk to his car with rifle bags and ammunition

cans. The officer recognized the rifle bags as rifle bags because he used the same bags.

After making several trips back and forth to the car, Shaw got in the car and drove away.

          The officer stopped Shaw and searched his car. He found three AR-15 rifles,

three Glock handguns, 25 high-capacity AR-15 magazines, seven Glock magazines,

2,000 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, about 100 rounds of nine millimeter

ammunition, and about 820 rounds of 5.56 caliber ammunition. This included a loaded

Glock handgun in the glove compartment. All of the guns appeared to be in working

order. Shaw’s wife told the police at the time and later testified that all the weapons and

ammunition were hers.

          1 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 (Anders).

                                               2
       In March 2022 the San Bernardino County District Attorney charged Shaw with

injuring a spouse (Penal Code,2 § 273.5, subd. (a); count 1), possession of a firearm by a

felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2), unlawful possession of ammunition (§ 30305,

subd. (a)(1); count 3), child abuse under circumstances likely to cause great bodily injury

(§ 273a, subd. (a); count 4), and attempted murder (§ 664/187, subd. (a); count 5). The

prosecution also alleged one strike (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), § 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and

11 aggravating circumstances. Shaw eventually stipulated he was a felon.

       In July 2022 a jury convicted Shaw on counts 2 and 3, found him not guilty on

counts 4 and 5, and deadlocked on count 1. The prosecution dismissed count 1 in

September 2022 and re-filed it in a separate case. Shaw appealed the judgment on

counts 2 and 3.

                                      DISCUSSION

       We appointed counsel to represent Shaw on appeal, and counsel has filed a brief

under the authority of Wende and Anders, setting forth a statement of the case and a

summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.

Counsel’s brief raised one potential issue for our consideration: whether there was

sufficient evidence to convict Shaw on counts 2 and 3. We offered Shaw an opportunity

to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

       2 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.

                                             3
      We have independently reviewed the record for potential error as required by

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 and find no arguable error that would result in a

disposition more favorable to Shaw.

                                      DISPOSITION

      We affirm the judgment.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              RAPHAEL
                                                                                          J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

MENETREZ
                          J.

                                            4