People v. Terrell CA2/5 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/7/24 P. v. Terrell CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B332851
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. BA379758-01)
KEISHON TERRELL,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed.
Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
A trial jury in 2013 convicted defendant and appellant
Keishon Anthony Terrell (defendant) of the willful, deliberate,
and premeditated murder of victim Marcus Flagg. The jury also
found true allegations that the crime was gang-related (Pen.
Code,1 § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and that a principal in the crime
discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury.2 Defendant
was sentenced to life in prison for the attempted murder plus a
consecutive term of 25 years to life in prison for the firearm
enhancement.
Defendant filed a section 1172.6 (former section 1170.95)
petition for resentencing in January 2022. The petition argued
defendant was eligible for resentencing because he was convicted
of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder under the natural
and probable consequences doctrine. (See generally People v.
Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860, 865; People v. Coley (2022)
77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548 [“[Former s]ection 1170.95 applies by its
terms only to attempted murders based on the natural and
probable consequences doctrine”].) The prosecution opposed
defendant’s petition, contending his jury was not instructed on
the natural and probable consequences doctrine and he was
instead convicted on a direct aiding and abetting theory of
liability. Appointed counsel for defendant filed a response to the
opposition arguing there was insufficient evidence to support
finding defendant guilty of attempted murder on a direct aiding
and abetting theory.
1
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.
2
The jury found lesser “principal armed” firearm allegations
(mere discharge and use) true too.
2
The trial court held a hearing and denied defendant’s
section 1172.6 petition. The court found “the instructions and the
findings of the jury seem to be unanimous that . . . [defendant]
had the necessary intent and was a direct aider and abettor in
the commission of the offense. [¶] Therefore, I’m not finding a
prima facie showing . . . .”
Defendant noticed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
Defendant’s attorney filed a brief raising no issues and, in an
accompanying declaration, attested to having reviewed the entire
appellate record as well as the jury instructions, verdicts, and
closing arguments from the underlying trial. Defendant’s
attorney asked this court to process the appeal in accordance
with the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216. Defendant was thereafter permitted to personally
file a supplemental brief, which he did on June 24, 2024.
Defendant’s four paragraph supplemental brief complains
that his attorney did not exercise due diligence in representing
him by failing to “pursu[e] all avenues to present crucial
evidence.”3 He does not specify what evidence should have been
presented, but he maintains the trial court’s denial of an
evidentiary hearing on his petition “violat[ed] his rights under
the law and under principles of justice.” He asks this court to
undertake an independent review of the record.
Defendant’s mostly conclusory complaint about the
performance of the attorney representing him below, assuming it
3
Defendant’s supplemental brief specifically faults his
appointed attorney for failing to “secur[e] time for an
investigator.” The record belies the assertion; defendant’s
attorney did seek and obtain the assistance of an investigator.
3
is cognizable in this proceeding, is unsupported by the appellate
record and fails for that reason. (People v. Carter (2005) 36
Cal.4th 1114, 1189.) Defendant makes no specific argument for
why the trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing,
and we do not attempt to develop the argument ourselves. (See,
e.g., People v. Flint (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 983, 1006, fn. 17.) We
decline defendant’s request to independently review the record
for unidentified error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 232 [“The
filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an
independent review of the entire record to identify unraised
issues”].)
4
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, Acting P. J.
We concur:
MOOR, J.
KIM, J.
5