Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Tyrese Williams Lawrence of first degree murder, first degree burglary, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The charges arose from the May 1, 2021 shooting of 17-year-old Angel M. inside the home where Angel lived with his mother and brothers. Testimony and surveillance footage showed Lawrence confronting Angel's brother Calvin over missing bullets, forcing his way into the home twice with a gun, and shooting Angel in the stomach. The jury found Lawrence guilty on all four counts and found true the enhancement allegations except the robbery-murder special circumstance, which it found not true. In a bifurcated proceeding the court found the prior strike and serious felony allegations true and imposed a total sentence of 46 years plus 152 years to life.
On appeal, Lawrence challenged his firearm-possession conviction under the Second Amendment standard in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He also sought a stay of his burglary punishment under Penal Code section 654, arguing the evidence did not support the alternative theory of premeditated and deliberate murder. The People separately identified a discrepancy between the orally pronounced sentence and the abstract of judgment, which listed a total indeterminate term of 156 years to life rather than 152.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected the facial Second Amendment challenge to Penal Code section 29800, subdivision (a)(1). Following People v. Alexander, it held that Bruen affirmed the well-established rule that only law-abiding citizens are among 'the people' whose right to bear arms is protected, and that convicted felons are not law-abiding. It agreed with People v. Ceja that Alexander is highly persuasive and supported by the Supreme Court's analyses in Heller and Bruen. Because Lawrence offered no persuasive reason to depart from the division's precedent, the possession conviction stood.
The court next held that substantial evidence supported premeditation and deliberation, so section 654 did not require staying the burglary term. Separate punishment for murder and an underlying felony is permissible when the prosecution pursued an alternative murder theory supported by substantial evidence. The surveillance footage showed Lawrence leave the first altercation, sit in his car for about a minute, then return with his gun raised, firing two shots at the house before kicking in the door again—a sequence supporting an inference of reflection and planning. The close-range shot to Angel's stomach, a vital and vulnerable body part, and evidence from which a jury could infer a revenge motive also supported the finding.
The court distinguished People v. Wear, where the defendant grabbed the victim's gun, shot him twice in the head, and fled, with all three shots in a matter of seconds. Lawrence, by contrast, shot Angel with his own gun, which he brought into the house twice—the second time after spending time outside to plan his next move—so the burglary punishment was upheld. Finally, the court directed the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect a total indeterminate term of 152 years to life and to forward a certified copy to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; in all other respects the judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal continued to follow People v. Alexander in rejecting a facial Second Amendment challenge to California's prohibition on firearm possession by convicted felons.
- A burglary sentence need not be stayed under section 654 when substantial evidence supports an alternative theory of premeditated and deliberate murder alongside felony murder.
- Lawrence exited his car and returned to the house with his gun raised, firing two shots before kicking in the door again, which the court treated as evidence of reflection and planning.
- The close-range shooting of a vital and vulnerable body part and the evidence of a possible revenge motive further supported premeditation and deliberation.
- The judgment was affirmed except for a directed correction of the abstract of judgment from 156 years to life to the orally imposed 152 years to life.
Why It Matters
The decision applies existing California appellate precedent to a facial constitutional challenge rather than announcing a new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Its principal case-specific analysis concerns section 654 and alternative theories of first degree murder: the availability of felony murder did not require a stay of the burglary term because the record independently supported premeditated and deliberate murder.
The opinion also illustrates how surveillance footage can supply evidence of planning and reflection even when the interval is brief: Lawrence walked away, sat in his car, then returned armed and shot Angel. By contrasting that sequence with the rapid, responsive shooting in Wear, the court explained why the pause and return supported the verdict. The directed correction ensured the written abstract matched the sentence pronounced at the sentencing hearing.