People v. Morton CA4/3

Filed 3/2/21 P. v. Morton CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G059414

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99CF2224)

BRUCE MORTON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham, Judge. Affirmed. Siri Shetty, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

In 2002, defendant Bruce Morton was convicted of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in death of child under eight years old (count one; 1 Pen. Code, § 273ab), and murder (count two; § 187). The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life on count one, and the sentence on count two was stayed under section 654. Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed. (People v. Morton (Oct. 7, 2003, G030535) [nonpub. opn.].) We need not delve deeply into the facts of the case; suffice to say that defendant was the actual killer of the five-year-old victim, who died of blunt force trauma to the head. The only other persons present at the time were defendant’s 10-month-old daughter and an 11-year-old child. (People v. Morton, supra, G030535.) In August 2020, Morton filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The petition requested appointment of counsel and stated that “the prosecution in [Morton’s] case proceeded under the theory of felony murder or under the natural and probable consequence doctrine, and he could not now be convicted of second degree murder and/or child assault causing death because of the retroactive changes made to Penal Code sections 188 and 189.” The court summarily denied the petition, stating: “The petition does not set forth a prima face case for relief under the statute. A review of court records indicates defendant is not eligible for relief under the statute because the defendant does not stand convicted of murder or defendant’s murder conviction(s) is not based on felony-murder or on a natural and probable consequences theory of vicarious liability for aiders and abettors.” Defendant filed a notice of appeal, and appointed counsel filed a brief summarizing the case with citations to the record, but counsel raised no arguable issues