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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,

v.

BRUCE MORTON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G059414

 (Super. Ct. No. 99CF2224)

 O P I N I O N

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.

* * *
2

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; 

Pen. Code, § 273ab),1and 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 

1

Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental 

brief on his own behalf.

Because this is not defendant’s first appeal as a matter of right, we are not 

required to independently review the record, but we may conduct such a review in the 

interests of justice. (People v. Flores (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 266, 268.) Here, we have 

conducted an independent review of the record and we have found no arguable issues that 

require briefing or argument.

The Legislature adopted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 

1437) “to amend the felony murder rule and the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a person 

who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major 

participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life.” 

(Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f), italics added; see § 189, subd. (e).) SB 1437 

therefore amended sections 188 and 189 to limit the natural and probable causes doctrine 

and the felony murder rule. (See §§ 188, 189, subd. (e).)

Additionally, SB 1437 enacted section 1170.95. Under subdivision (a) of 

section 1170.95, a person convicted of first or second degree murder may petition a trial 

court for resentencing “when all of the following conditions apply: [¶] (1) A complaint, 

information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to 

proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine. [¶] (2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second 

degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the 

petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder. [¶] (3) The 

petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to 

Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.”

Defendant’s supplemental brief states that he is eligible for relief because 

the jury was instructed on a natural and probable consequences theory of murder. While 
4

the jury was so instructed, defendant misapprehends the scope of section 1170.95. It 

applies only to aiders and abettors, not those who actually committed the murder. 

(People v. Cornelius (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 54, 58.) Based on the record, there is no 

doubt that defendant was convicted as the actual killer, not an aider or abettor. Therefore,

he is not entitled to relief under section 1170.95, and the trial court’s decision was correct 

as a matter of law.

The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

IKOLA, J.