Court Opinion

ID: 9954686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 19:02:53.394502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.465249
License: Public Domain

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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                              2
and their cohorts fired into the wrong apartment in a mistargeted, retaliatory gang strike.”
(People v. Barnett, supra, G041416.)
              On April 17, 2023, Morrison filed a motion pursuant to Penal Code
section 1465.9 asking the trial court to vacate the fines it had ordered him to pay when he
was sentenced. On May 18, 2023, the court denied the motion. On June 16, 2023,
Morrison filed a notice of appeal from that denial.
              On August 29, 2023, Morrison filed a letter in the trial court pursuant to
People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 959-960. On September 20, 2023, the trial
court vacated the fines it had ordered Morrison to pay by minute order. On October 2,
2023, the trial court filed an amended abstract of judgment which is at best ambiguous.

                                       DISCUSSION
              The trial court effectively granted Morrison’s motion in its September 2023
minute order. That action moots Morrison’s appeal since he has received the relief he
sought. We nonetheless must reverse the judgment to allow the trial court to clarify its
ambiguous abstract of judgment. After examining the entire record, like counsel, we can
find no other arguable appellate issue.

                                     DISPOSITION
              The trial court’s postjudgment order, which denied Morrison’s motion to
vacate the fines imposed at sentencing is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court
with directions to reexamine the latest abstract of judgment prepared by the court and

                                             3
correct any error it finds. A certified copy of the new abstract of judgment shall then be
forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                 GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

                                             4