Court Opinion

ID: 9400215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 18:04:27.42501+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:43.019132
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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unpublished opinion.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

                                     4