Court Opinion

ID: 9369772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 18:02:16.524504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.959896
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/9/23 P. v. Shinn CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F084566
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. VCF373926)
                    v.

    ALEXANDER JUDE SHINN,                                                                 OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda
Myrle Reed, Judge.
         Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Alexander Jude Shinn, who was convicted by
jury trial of first degree murder, asked this court to review the record to determine
whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of
the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not respond. Finding no arguable
error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the
judgment.
                                     BACKGROUND
       In the early morning of December 8, 2018, defendant killed one of his housemates,
Brian Alexander Garza, by striking his head with a breaker bar when he was asleep and
then strangling him. Defendant dragged the body into his vehicle, returned to clean up
the blood, then drove to an orchard and dumped the body. On the way home, he called
his mother and confessed. Then he called 911 and confessed. At the police station, after
receiving a Miranda1 warning, defendant confessed again in a recorded statement.2
Defendant’s trial theory was that he did kill Garza, but he was guilty of a crime lesser
than first degree murder.
       On May 27, 2021, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and the personal use of a
deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the murder (Pen. Code, § 12022,
subd. (b)(1)).
       On February 14, 2022, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and
found true the weapon allegation.
       On May 5, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life, plus
one year for the weapon enhancement.

1      Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
2      At trial, witnesses testified to corroborating facts.

                                              2.
       On July 1, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.
       On December 2, 2022, appellate counsel mailed a letter to the trial court pursuant
to People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, requesting that the court correct
defendant’s custody credits by one day to 1,245 days. Because we have no record of a
response by the trial court, we will remand for consideration of counsel’s letter.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to determine
whether defendant is entitled to another day of custody credit and, if so, to forward copies
of an amended abstract of judgment to the appropriate entities.

                                             3.