Court Opinion

ID: 9878389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:03:49.975005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:58:20.977401
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/27/23 P. v. McShane 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    E081318

 v.                                                                       (Super.Ct.No. FRE05916)

 DOUGLAS BRIAN McSHANE,                                                   OPINION

             Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino. Ronald M. Christianson, Judge.

Affirmed.

         John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Douglas Brian McShane appeals from the denial of his motion to vacate his

murder conviction pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1

         1         All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
       In 2017, in a jury trial, McShane was found guilty of second degree murder

(§ 187, subd. (a)), with an enhancement for personally and intentionally discharging a

firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and lesser included firearm enhancements.

He is serving a sentence totaling 35 years to life in prison.

       In 2023, he filed a petition to vacate the murder conviction pursuant to section

1172.6. The People filed a response, arguing that the record of conviction established

that he was convicted as the actual killer, acting with malice.

       The trial court appointed counsel and set a prima facie hearing. At that hearing,

defense counsel conceded, “[I]t does appear from the jury instructions that the jury was

asked to consider only him as the shooter with either express or implied malice.” The

trial court denied the petition because McShane “was not charged as an aider and

abettor.”

       McShane’s appointed appellate counsel filed a “no-issue” brief, asking us to

review the record independently. We notified McShane of this and advised him that we

may — but we are not required to — conduct an independent review of the record. We

invited him to file a supplemental brief asserting any arguments that he deemed

necessary, and we cautioned him that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of his

appeal as abandoned. He did not file a supplemental brief.

       Under these circumstances, we have the option, in our discretion, of dismissing the

appeal as abandoned or reviewing the record independently. (People v. Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 232.) In general, absent some particularized reason to do

                                              2
otherwise, this panel considers it to be in the interest of justice to review the record

independently.

       Having done so, we find no error. To be eligible for relief under section 1172.6, a

petitioner must have been “convicted of [1] felony murder or [2] murder under the natural

and probable consequences doctrine or [3] other theory under which malice is imputed to

a person based solely on that person’s participation in a crime, . . .” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).)

If the record shows that the jury was not instructed on any of these theories, the petitioner

is ineligible for relief as a matter of law. (People v. Harden (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 45,

52; People v. Cortes (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 198, 205.)

       Once defense counsel conceded that the jury was instructed exclusively on an

actual malice theory of murder, the trial court was required to deny the petition. There is

no indication in the record that this concession constituted ineffective assistance of

counsel in any way.

                                       DISPOSITION

       The order appealed from is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                  RAMIREZ
                                                                                           P. J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON
                           J.

FIELDS
                           J.

                                               3