Filed 10/31/25 P. v. Morris CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085039 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD272384) ARROW MORRIS, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Carolyn Caietti, Judge. Affirmed.

Arrow Morris, in pro. per.; and Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Arrow Morris of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found he personally used a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court found Morris had a violent felony prior conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (a)) and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)). Morris

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. appealed from the judgment and this court affirmed in part and reversed in part in an unpublished opinion, remanding the matter for resentencing. (People v. Morris (Aug. 11, 2021, D076312).)

At resentencing on remand, Morris was ultimately sentenced to an indeterminate term of 75 years to life plus seven years and four months in prison.

In March 2024, Morris filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing.

The trial court determined that Morris had not made a prima facie showing of eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. Specifically, the court found Morris was the actual shooter and that there were no jury instructions dealing with implied malice based on the conduct of others. The court denied the petition for resentencing.

Morris filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues that might warrant reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error.

We advised Morris of his right to file his own brief on appeal. Morris has responded by filing a brief in which he seeks to challenge his underlying trial and conviction. Morris does not raise any issues regarding the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

We discussed the facts of the underlying judgment in our earlier opinion. We will not repeat that discussion here.

DISCUSSION We have exercised our discretion and independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Morris on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying Morris’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.