People v. Morris CA3

Filed 10/16/25 P. v. Morris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101581

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE- 1999-0005829) v.

ORVILLE MARCELL MORRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1999, a jury found defendant Orville Marcell Morris guilty of attempted robbery. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 211.) A jury also found true numerous enhancement allegations, including two one-year prior prison term enhancements (former § 667.5, subd. (b)) and two five-year prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 35 years to life in state prison. In 2022, defendant was resentenced pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 483) (Stats. 2021. ch. 728) because his judgment included now invalid prior prison term enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) At resentencing, the trial court struck the prior prison term and prior serious felony enhancements but declined to dismiss his prior strike enhancements. Defendant was resentenced to 25 years to life.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant argues, and the People agree, that the trial court failed to recalculate defendant’s custody credits at resentencing and specify the updated total in the amended abstract of judgment. The parties also stipulate that the balance of defendant’s restitution fine must be stricken pursuant to recently enacted section 1465.9, subdivision (d). We agree and will remand the matter to the trial court for the limited purpose of correcting the sentencing errors. In all other respects, we affirm. BACKGROUND We omit a discussion of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. In 1999, a jury convicted appellant of attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211). In a bifurcated proceeding, the jury found true two prior strike allegations (§§ 667, subds. (b)- (i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), two prior serious felony enhancements (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison term enhancements (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court stayed the two prior prison term enhancements and sentenced defendant to 25 years to life, plus 10 years. The court awarded defendant 446 days of custody credit: 297 days of actual credit and 149 days of conduct credit, and ordered him to pay a $2,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In 2022, the trial court issued an ex parte order indicating defendant was a person in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) serving a prison term for a judgment that included now invalid prior prison term enhancements. The trial court appointed counsel and set the matter for a resentencing hearing. Defendant filed a resentencing brief arguing that the trial court must dismiss his prior prison term enhancements because they are legally invalid. (See § 1172.75.) Defendant also asked the court to exercise its discretion under section 1385, to dismiss one of the prior strike convictions and the two prior serious felony enhancements.