Filed 10/1/26 P. v. Myvitte CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE, B340023
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. BA480454)
SHAWN DENFIELD MYVITTE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Craig Richman, Judge. Affirmed.
Cliff Gardner and Lazuli Whitt, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, David E. Madeo and Chung L. Mar, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
______________________________
A jury found defendant and appellant Shawn Denfield
Myvitte (Myvitte) guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187,
subd. (a);1 count 1) and possession of a firearm by a felon
(§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 2). As to the murder, the jury found
true firearm allegations within the meaning of section 12022.53,
subdivisions (b), (c), and (d). Myvitte admitted that he had
suffered two prior “strike” convictions pursuant to the Three
Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)).
The trial court struck both of the prior strike convictions
pursuant to section 1385, and sentenced Myvitte to an
indeterminate term of 50 years to life on count 1 (consisting of
25 years to life for the murder and a consecutive term of 25 years
to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement) and
a determinate term of two years on count 2.
On appeal, Myvitte contends that (1) his waiver of his right
to counsel was not valid, and (2) the trial court erred in excluding
evidence purportedly corroborating the defense theory that police
“planted” the murder weapon. Myvitte also requests that we
review sealed materials to determine if the trial court erred in
declining to release records from the personnel files of two police
officers.
We affirm.
FACTS
Because Myvitte does not challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his convictions, we only briefly summarize
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
otherwise stated.
2
the evidence adduced at trial. (See People v. Curl (2009)
46 Cal.4th 339, 342, fn. 3.)
On August 17, 2019, Myvitte approached Michael S.2 at a
bus stop. Myvitte began arguing with Michael, who eventually
turned his back to Myvitte. Myvitte brandished a gun and fatally
shot Michael in the head.
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers heard the
gunshot and saw Myvitte running. Myvitte placed a handgun
into a backpack. Following a foot pursuit, the officers arrested
Myvitte and recovered the backpack. A handgun forensically
linked to the shooting at the bus stop was found inside the
backpack. However, a gunshot residue test on Myvitte’s hands
was negative, and a test of the DNA found on the gun was
inconclusive.
DISCUSSION
I. Waiver of Right to Counsel
A. Additional background
A complaint charging Myvitte with murder and possession
of a firearm by a felon was filed in August 2019. The complaint
alleged firearm enhancements as to the murder.3
2 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(4), we
initially refer to the victim in this criminal proceeding by his first
name and last initial, and thereafter by his first name. No
disrespect is intended.
3 A copy of the original complaint is not included in the
record on appeal. The trial court, however, stated on the record
“that the complaint contained the firearm allegation.” We credit
the court’s description of the contents of the complaint, which has
not been challenged. (See People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th
3
On October 9, 2019, Myvitte requested self-representation.
The trial court engaged in a detailed colloquy with Myvitte,
during which the court advised, among other things, that
proceeding without counsel was “almost always unwise” and that
Myvitte would be treated like an attorney and bound by the same
rules. The court asked if Myvitte “underst[oo]d the nature of the
charges against” him; Myvitte responded that he did. Finding
that Myvitte had voluntarily and intelligently chosen self-
representation, the court granted him pro per status.
About 10 months later, in August 2020, Myvitte
relinquished his pro per status, and defense counsel was
reappointed.
The preliminary hearing was held on November 7, 2022.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found “sufficient
cause to believe” that Myvitte was guilty of “a violation of . . .
section 187[, subdivision] (a) in count 1; and, [in] count 2, a
violation of . . . section 29800[, subdivision] (a)(1) as well as the
allegation pursuant to . . . section 12022.53[, subdivisions] (d), (c),
and (b).”
The information was filed on November 21, 2022. On the
first page, the information summary indicated that a
section 12022.53, subdivision (d) allegation was attached to the
murder count (count 1) and had the effect of “+25 Yrs. to Life
Prison.” The section 12022.53 firearm enhancement was not
otherwise mentioned in the information.
644, 666 [“On appeal, we presume that a judgment . . . is correct,
‘ “[a]ll intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it
on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be
affirmatively shown[]” ’ ”].)
4
On August 16, 2023, Myvitte again requested self-
representation. The trial court told Myvitte: “I want you to think
about this, okay. . . . You are charged with murder.” The court
continued: “I assume you know that basically if you are convicted
of murder, you should plan on spending the rest of your life in
prison. So you are making a decision that potentially could affect
the rest of your life.” Myvitte replied, “Uh-huh.” The court
proceeded to compare the legal experience of the prosecutor and
defense counsel with Myvitte’s profession as a musician. The
court advised, “You want a lawyer to represent you.” Myvitte
responded, “I get what you’re saying . . . .” Myvitte also said that
he would be “ready to go.”
The trial court granted Myvitte’s request for self-
representation. The court’s minute order reflects that Myvitte
was given a copy of the information, and that the court found
that Myvitte “voluntarily and intelligently cho[se] self-
representation, and that he knowingly, intelligently,
understandingly, and explicitly waive[d] his right to counsel[.]”
Myvitte also signed an advisement and waiver of right to counsel
form.
On October 5, 2023, the case was called for trial. The
following colloquy ensued:
THE COURT: “Mr. Myvitte, so you know how we’re going
to proceed. And by the way, we talked about the sports reference,
okay.
“DEFENDANT MYVITTE: Yeah.
“THE COURT: We’re playing now. Today is the beginning
of the first quarter of the Superbowl [sic] for you.
“DEFENDANT MYVITTE: Yeah.
5
“THE COURT: Okay. You haven’t practiced, you haven’t
had a game. And we’re playing for your life at this point in time.
“DEFENDANT MYVITTE: Yeah.
“THE COURT: All right. It’s time to decide are you going
to fish or cut bait? You want to continue to represent yourself?
“DEFENDANT MYVITTE: Yeah, I do.
“THE COURT: Okay. I wanted to give you that chance.”
The trial court then addressed a discrepancy between the
information and the People’s trial brief, filed that day, which
asserted that Myvitte was charged as to count 1 with firearm
enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and
(d). The court noted that “the body of the information” omitted
the firearm allegations, although they appeared in the complaint
and “Myvitte was held to answer on the firearm allegations.”
The prosecutor offered to file an amended information.
Myvitte objected, arguing that the firearm enhancements were
new allegations. The trial court responded: “You are certainly,
were on notice by virtue of the fact it was alleged in the
complaint, you were held to answer and there is clearly a firearm
allegation. [¶] I agree that it significantly changes the stakes
involved here. Because we are talking about if the [subdivision]
(d) allegation is found true an additional 25-to-life sentence.”
The trial court found that the information’s omission of the
firearm enhancement allegations was “a clerical error” and
permitted the People to amend. The amended information was
filed that day, expressly alleging the firearm enhancements in
the body of the pleading.
B. Relevant law and standard of review
The United States Constitution guarantees a criminal
defendant the “right to proceed without counsel when he
6
voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” (Faretta v.
California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 807 (Faretta); see also People v.
Bertsch and Hronis (2026) 19 Cal.5th 183, 290 [“A criminal
defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to conduct his or her
own defense”].)
“In deciding whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary,
we examine the record as a whole to see whether the defendant
actually understood the consequences and import of the decision
to waive counsel, and whether the waiver was freely made.
[Citation.] There is no prescribed script or admonition that trial
courts must use in warning a defendant of the disadvantages of
self-representation. But, in whatever way the trial court chooses
to explain the perils of self-representation, the record as a whole
must establish that the defendant understood the ‘dangers and
disadvantages’ of waiving the right to counsel, including the risks
and intricacies of the case. [Citations.] We review a Faretta
waiver de novo, and examine the whole record to determine the
validity of a defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel.
[Citation.]” (People v. Mickel (2016) 2 Cal.5th 181, 211–212
(Mickel).)
C. The waiver was valid
Myvitte does not challenge the validity of his waiver of the
right to counsel in October 2019. Nor does he challenge his
second waiver of that right in August 2023 at the time it was
made. He concedes that he “properly waived his right to counsel
under the circumstances which existed at the time . . . .” Rather,
Myvitte contends that the judgment must be reversed because
the subsequent filing of an amended information to include
firearm allegations in the body of the pleading invalidated his
earlier waiver of counsel.
7
We disagree. Myvitte’s waiver of his right to counsel
continued to be knowing and intelligent following the amendment
of the information. That Myvitte was being charged with murder
with section 12022.53 firearm enhancements was clear from the
inception of this case when the original complaint was filed in
August 2019. It was clear at the November 2022 preliminary
hearing, when Myvitte was held to answer on the
section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) allegations. And it
was clear when the information was filed a few weeks later and
stated on the first page that a section 12022.53, subdivision (d)
allegation was attached to the murder count and had the effect of
potentially adding 25 years to life to the sentence.
Myvitte was expressly advised when he waived his right to
counsel in August 2023 that he was facing life imprisonment.
The trial court told Myvitte that, if he was convicted of murder,
he “should plan on spending the rest of [his] life in prison” and
that he was “making a decision [about self-representation] that
potentially could affect the rest of [his] life.” Myvitte indicated
that he understood.
Under these circumstances, “[t]he record clearly shows
[Myvitte] chose self-representation with his eyes open to the risks
and disadvantages it entailed” and “the nature and seriousness of
the charges he faced” (People v. Taylor (2009) 47 Cal.4th 850,
879), including that he was being charged with firearm
enhancements that could lead to an additional 25-years-to-life
sentence. The filing of the amended information to include the
section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) allegations in the
body of the pleading corrected a clerical error; it did not subject
Myvitte to additional charges or punishment of which he had not
been previously aware. Myvitte’s waiver of counsel remained
8
knowing and intelligent following the amendment of the
information. (See Mickel, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 210 [holding that
a defendant’s Faretta waiver was knowing and voluntary even
though it preceded the filing of a section 190.3 notice of intent to
seek death where “the record support[ed] the conclusion that
[the] defendant was fully aware that the People sought the death
penalty before the trial court granted [the] defendant’s motion for
self-representation”].)
II. Alleged Evidentiary Error
Myvitte contends that the trial court improperly excluded a
police body camera video purportedly showing the police finding
Myvitte’s cellular phone in his pocket and then “plant[ing]” it in
the backpack. Myvitte argues that the court erred in finding the
evidence irrelevant, because it “directly supported the defense
theory” that the police also “planted” the gun linked to the
murder in the backpack. But this was not the theory of
admissibility advanced by Myvitte below. Rather, Myvitte
asserted that the significance of the evidence was to show that
police were improperly attempting to “link” him to a backpack
that did not belong to him and which contained the murder
weapon.
Myvitte’s failure to raise in the trial court the theory of
admissibility now asserted on appeal forfeits the claim. (See
Evid. Code, § 354, subd. (a); People v. Pearson (2013) 56 Cal.4th
393, 470, fn. 10 [failure to raise a theory of admissibility at trial
forfeits claim on appeal]; People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133,
1178 [“As a condition precedent to challenging the exclusion of
proffered testimony, Evidence Code section 354, subdivision (a),
requires the proponent make known to the court the ‘substance,
purpose, and relevance of the excluded evidence’ ”].) “A party
9
cannot argue the court erred in failing to conduct an analysis it
was not asked to conduct.” (People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th
428, 435.)
III. Independent Pitchess Review
Before Myvitte moved to represent himself, his counsel
filed a motion pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974)
11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) for discovery of all Brady4 materials from
the personnel records of an officer and a detective employed by
the LAPD. The trial court found good cause to grant the motion
and hold an in camera hearing with regard to both officers on the
issue of honesty. The court conducted an in camera Pitchess
hearing on April 24, 2023, found “discoverable information,” and
ordered the custodian of records to provide the discovery to the
defense.
Myvitte asks us to independently review the sealed portion
of the reporter’s transcript “to determine if undisclosed records
referenced in the sealed transcripts would have assisted counsel
in cross-examining” the officer and detective “or developing either
impeaching or exculpatory evidence.” The People do not object to
this request.
Where, as here, “a trial court concludes a defendant’s
Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant
evidence contained in a law enforcement officer’s personnel files,
the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court
all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to
examine them for itself. [Citation.]” (People v. Mooc (2001)
26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228–1229 (Mooc).) The court must conduct an
in camera review and “make a record of what documents it
4 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83.
10
examined before ruling . . . .” (Id. at p. 1229.) “ ‘Subject to
statutory exceptions and limitations . . . , the trial court should
then disclose to the defendant “such information [that] is relevant
to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” ’
[Citation.]” (People v. Nuno (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1054.)
We review the court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. (Mooc,
supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1228.)
Having independently reviewed the sealed reporter’s
transcript of the in camera hearing, we conclude that the trial
court properly exercised its discretion and no ground for reversal
exists.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
GOORVITCH, J.
We concur:
LUI, P. J.
CHAVEZ, J.
11