Opinion
D080989
06-07-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHEW A. LAWRIE, Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew A. Lawrie, in pro. per.; and Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. SCN160404 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.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
This appeal is from the denial of a second petition for resentencing under Penal Code 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 the victim, and he also remains ineligible for resentencing under this statute. We will again affirm the denial of this successive petition.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
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Lawrie appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion.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 This court affirmed the order denying relief in an unpublished opinion.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.
The facts of the offense are summarized in our previous opinions. We will not include another summary here.
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 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.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Lawrie's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. CASTILLO, J.