People v. Morrison CA4/3

Filed 3/26/24 P. v. Morrison 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062842 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FSB053188-5) v. OPINION SINQUE BEIANA MORRISON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino, Rodney A. Cortez, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Alan S. Yockelson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Sinque Beiana Morrison has filed a post-conviction appeal from “the judgment of the court dismissing the motion to vacate judgement [sic] of court-imposed costs (fines and Restitution) now unenforceable and uncollectible per [Penal Code section] 1465.9 in the above-entitled action.” We appointed counsel to represent Morrison. After conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, counsel informed us in his declaration that he “thoroughly reviewed the record in this case. An attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc., has also reviewed this case.” Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. While not arguing against his client, counsel briefly set forth the relevant facts related to this appeal. Counsel also advised Morrison of his right to file a written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so. Finally, counsel underscored this court’s obligation to “conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues that would, if resolved favorably to the appellant, result in reversal or modification of the judgment.”

FACTS

The facts which underly Morrison’s conviction are not at issue in this limited appeal. Suffice it to say, Morrison and a codefendant were convicted of murder plus other related charges. We modified the judgment as we affirmed the convictions in 2011. (People v. Barnett (July 28, 2011, G041416) [nonpub. opn.].) In that opinion we summarized the facts of the case: “A jury convicted Michael Barnett, Jr., of second degree murder and Sinque Morrison of first degree murder for the senseless shooting death of 11-year-old Mynisha Crenshaw . . . who died in a fusillade of bullets defendants