People v. Shaw CA6

── People v. Shaw CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Shaw CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H051527 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 22CR004787) v. TERRANCE SHAW, Defendant and Appellant. In August 2023, a jury convicted defendant Terrance Shaw, an inmate at the Monterey County Jail (jail) of various offenses arising out of his assaulting two other inmates, Martin S. and Michael A.1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that Shaw had four prior convictions that constituted both strikes and serious felony enhancements. Shaw was sentenced to an aggregate term of two years, consecutive to any other sentence. On appeal, Shaw argues that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony regarding violence in custodial settings and by excluding his own testimony describing his exposure to violence during his incarceration. He also argues that the trial court erred by imposing a $600 restitution fund fine instead of the statutory minimum of $300. As we explain below, we reject Shaw’s arguments in their entirety and will affirm the judgment. 1 We refer to the victims and witnesses, other than police officers and expert witnesses, by their first names and last initials to protect their privacy interests. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.90(b)(4), (10), (11).)  I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural background On August 21, 2023, the Monterey County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Shaw with two counts of assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,2 § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 1 [Martin S.], count 3 [Michael A.]); and two counts of battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d); count 2 [Martin S.], count 4 [Michael A.]). As to counts 1 and 3, the amended information alleged that Shaw personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victims within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a) and, as to counts 2 and 4, that he personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 969f, subdivision (a). The amended information further alleged, as to all four counts, that Shaw had four prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)) and four prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On August 28, 2023, the jury found Shaw guilty of counts 3 and 4 [Michael A.] but found not true the great bodily injury enhancements alleged as to those offenses. The jury acquitted Shaw on counts 1 and 2 [Martin S.] but found him guilty of the lesser included offenses of simple assault (§ 240, count 1) and simple battery (§ 242, count 2). As to counts 1 and 2, the jury also found not true the great bodily injury enhancement allegations under sections 969f, subdivision (a) and 12022.7, subdivision (a). In a bifurcated proceeding that same day, the trial court found true the allegations that Shaw suffered four prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)) and four prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On October 24, 2023, the trial court denied Shaw’s Romero3 motion and his motion to reduce his convictions on counts 3 and 4 to misdemeanors (§ 17, subd. (b)). The trial court then sentenced Shaw to an agg