People v. Morris CA3

Filed 2/24/26 P. v. Morris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sierra) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101733

v. (Super. Ct. No. 4007)

BRUCE WAYNE MORRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1987, a San Joaquin County jury found defendant Bruce Wayne Morris guilty of first degree murder and robbery. The trial court ultimately resentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), plus a one-year prior prison term

1

enhancement imposed under Penal Code former section 667.5, subdivision (b),1 which was based on a prison term defendant had served for escape in violation of section 4530. In 2022, the trial court reviewed defendant’s sentence, verified that the prior prison term enhancement was no longer valid, and recalled defendant’s sentence under section 1172.75, subdivision (c). The following year, the San Joaquin Superior Court transferred the case to Sierra County where the crimes had occurred. The Sierra County Superior Court declined to resentence defendant, finding that he had prior 1978 convictions for sexually violent offenses which made him ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, subdivision (a). Defendant now contends the trial court should not have found him ineligible for resentencing. The People agree that because defendant’s prior prison term enhancement was based on the prior escape, the prior sexually violent offenses were not a basis to render him ineligible for resentencing. But the People claim defendant’s LWOP sentence nevertheless makes him ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75, subdivision (f). We agree with the parties that because defendant’s prior prison term enhancement was based on the prior escape, the prior sexually violent offenses were not a basis to render him ineligible for resentencing. However, we disagree with the People’s argument that section 1172.75, subdivision (f) applies to defendant. We will vacate the order finding defendant ineligible for resentencing and remand for a resentencing hearing consistent with section 1172.75. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court should not have found him ineligible for resentencing. We agree.