The California Supreme Court has officially declined to review rapper Tory Lanez’s criminal conviction, leaving his 10-year prison sentence in place for the 2020 shooting of Megan Thee Stallion.
According to KESQ 3, the decision was confirmed Wednesday. With this move, the state’s highest court chose not to disturb a prior ruling from the California 2nd District Court of Appeal. That appellate court had already affirmed Lanez’s convictions in November. As a result, the original verdict and sentence remain intact.
This development marks another major legal milestone in a case that has drawn national attention since 2020. While legal options at the state level are now exhausted, the ruling reinforces earlier court findings connected to the shooting incident that occurred in Los Angeles following a gathering in the Hollywood Hills.
Details Behind the Conviction and Appeal Ruling
In December 2022, a Los Angeles jury found Lanez, whose legal name is Daystar Peterson, guilty on three felony counts. Those charges included assault with a semiautomatic firearm, carrying a loaded unregistered firearm in a vehicle, and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. He was later sentenced in August 2023 to 10 years in prison.
The appellate court issued a detailed 46-page opinion addressing arguments raised by the defense. Lanez’s legal team had claimed evidentiary and procedural errors occurred during trial. However, the appellate justices rejected those arguments. They concluded the trial record contained “more than sufficient” evidence to support the jury’s determination that Peterson personally inflicted great bodily injury on Megan Pete.
Because the California Supreme Court declined review, the appellate court’s reasoning now stands as the final word at the state level. Importantly, when a high court declines review, it does not necessarily comment on the merits of the case. Instead, it simply chooses not to reexamine the lower court’s decision.
This ruling keeps the original conviction fully intact. Therefore, Lanez will continue serving the sentence imposed by the trial court.
What Megan Thee Stallion Testified During Trial
During the trial, Megan testified that Lanez shot her in the feet on July 12, 2020. The incident followed an argument after a gathering at Kylie Jenner’s home in the Hollywood Hills area of Los Angeles.On the witness stand, Megan told jurors she had “no doubt” that he fired the weapon. She also alleged that Lanez later offered her $1 million to remain silent about what happened. According to her testimony, he yelled, “dance, bitch,” before shooting.Under cross-examination, Megan addressed why she initially did not report the shooting to police. She stated she “didn’t want to be a snitch.” Later, she explained that she chose to “defend my name” after public figures began questioning whether she had been shot.
Prosecutors argued that the shooting stemmed from a personal dispute. During sentencing, Deputy District Attorney Alexander Bott stated Megan “bruised his ego,” calling the shooting “an act of misogyny.”
Defense attorney Jose Baez strongly rejected that claim. He called the theory “nuts,” and argued alcohol played a role in what he described as “foolish, reckless behavior.” He further stated, “The intent was not to take someone’s life.”
These courtroom statements became central to both the trial and the appeal. Ultimately, the jury sided with the prosecution’s version of events, and appellate courts later found the evidence legally sufficient to uphold that decision.
Additional Legal Developments and Restraining Order
The legal proceedings did not stop with the conviction and appeal. In 2024, Megan sought a restraining order alleging Lanez orchestrated online harassment from prison. She claimed coordinated efforts were made to target her reputation and credibility.
In January 2025, a Los Angeles judge granted that request. The restraining order added another layer to the ongoing legal conflict between the two artists. While separate from the criminal conviction, it reflected continuing court involvement tied to the case.
As of now, the California Supreme Court’s decision effectively closes the door on further review within California’s state court system. Any additional legal challenges would need to move through different legal channels, if pursued.
The case remains one of the most closely followed legal matters involving hip-hop artists in recent years. It has sparked conversations about celebrity accountability, trial procedure, and public reaction to high-profile cases.
