Full Opinion

Filed 11/10/26 P. v. Lawrie CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D087945 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN160404 v. MATTHEW LAWRIE, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly C. Mok, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Lawrie, in pro. per.; and Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, a jury convicted Matthew Lawrie of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). The court sentenced Lawrie to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life in prison. Lawrie filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered as section 1172.6). The trial court denied the petition. Lawrie appealed and this court upheld the denial. (People v. Lawrie (Mar. 13, 2020, D076835) [nonpub. opn.].) Lawrie filed a second petition for resentencing which the trial court denied. This court affirmed the denial. (People v. Lawrie (June 7, 2023, D080989) [nonpub. opn.].) Lawrie filed a third petition which the trial court denied. A fourth petition was filed and denied with prejudice by the trial court as a successive petition. Lawrie filed his fifth petition for resentencing, which again was denied. It appears the denial of the fifth petition under section 1172.6 is the matter that is before our court currently. 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 arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel is aware that under Delgadillo the court is not required to independently review the record for error. The court in Delgadillo has permitted the appellate courts to independently review the record for error at the court’s discretion. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 We advised Lawrie he could submit his own brief on appeal. He has responded with supplemental briefing. Essentially, Lawrie claims he is innocent of the murders charged for which he was convicted. However, the trial court found Lawrie to be the actual killer. Lawrie claims he is entitled to file successive petitions for resentencing. But our court upheld prior denials of his requests for resentencing. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786; People v. Bratton (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1100, 1126–1127.) Lawrie also argues his trial counsel was ineffective when Lawrie was convicted. We have reviewed the extensive materials in the record. Lawrie’s supplemental briefing has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified the following possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the “ ‘actual killer’ ” is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. 2. Whether the holding in People v. Nino (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 844 applies to the actual killer in a petition under section 1172.6. 3. Whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on a motion to replace counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. We have independently reviewed the record for error and have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Lawrie in this appeal. 3 DISPOSITION The order denying Lawrie’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: O’ROURKE, Acting P. J. AMIN, J.  Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4