People v. McClane CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 21, 2015E055088California12,592 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Shyne’s cousin testified and/or told the police3 that he and fellow 87th Street gang

member, McClane, were always together and at the time of the crimes, were living

around the corner from each other in Pomona. He did not know the victim. Shyne had

seen his cousin and McClane together “a lot.”

On December 19, 2008, Shyne called his cousin at their grandmother’s home and

said he wanted the cousin and McClane to do a robbery that day. Shyne said that he had

been to the victim’s motel suite the day before and she had been getting money from

prostituting herself. Shyne explained that his cousin doing the robbery would be good

because the latter had just gotten out of prison and had no money for Christmas gifts.4

2 We note that the minutes of the sentencing hearing state that the sentencing court imposed “the middle term of 15 years” for the gang allegation as to the murder, which the court then stayed pursuant to section 654. The latter is repeated in the abstract of judgment, absent the reference to section 654. However, the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement contains no reference to 15 years, to a stay or to section 654.

3 Citations to Exhibit 178 herein are to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.