Filed 7/6/26 P. v. Morris CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B345691
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
BA482663)
v.
FARRON MORRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed.
Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
This case comes before us for review under the procedures
prescribed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441–442
(Wende).
On June 24, 2019, at about 1:45 a.m., defendant and
appellant Farron Morris and fellow Harvard Park Brims Bloods
(Brims) members Jerry Cunningham, Daniel Carmicle, and
DeJohn Young Johnson were congregated in Harvard Park, a
stronghold within Brims territory. The group caravanned to the
Happy Shoppers Market in two vehicles, a black Dodge
Challenger and a white Chrysler 200 Sedan. The Happy
Shoppers Market was owned by a 65 Menlo Neighborhood Crips
(Menlo Crips) member and was a stronghold for the gang, who
were rivals of the Brims.
Carmicle and Johnson drove. When they arrived at
approximately 2:00 a.m., Carmicle and Johnson remained in the
cars. Morris and Cunningham exited the vehicles and walked
toward the market. Morris went inside while Cunningham
remained outside. When Morris entered the market, Cheryl
Dinkins, Shatara Williams, Kenneth Franklin, and Michael
“Monte” Bowman were in a small area by the cash register that
was surrounded by bulletproof glass. Bowman was a Menlo Crip.
Williams heard Morris “bang on” someone in the store by asking
where he was from. Morris pointed a revolver through the slot in
the bulletproof glass and fired three times. Williams and
Bowman dove to the floor. Bowman was hit by gunfire and
killed. When Morris shot Bowman, Bowman was looking at his
phone, unarmed, with his back turned to Morris. After the
killing, Morris and his compatriots fled the market and returned
to Harvard Park.
2
Surveillance cameras at Harvard Park and the Happy
Shoppers Market captured the events before, during, and after
Morris committed the crimes. Morris was masked when he
committed the shooting, but was wearing a distinctive belt and
shoes before, during, and immediately after the murder.
The jury found Morris guilty of first degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187, subd. (a), count 1) and found true the allegation
that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the
murder (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)). The jury further found
Morris guilty of two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd.
(a), counts 3 & 4), and found true the associated allegations that
Morris personally used a firearm in the commission of the
assaults (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The jury also found Morris guilty
of possession of a firearm by a felon. (§ 29800, subd. (a), count 7.)
The jury found Morris not guilty of assault with a firearm in
count 5, and found not true the aggravating factors alleged in
association with counts 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Because Morris was 18 years old when he committed the
crimes, the trial court reviewed defense counsel’s submission of
documents pertaining to Morris’s youth for use at a future parole
hearing, pursuant to section 3051. The trial court sentenced
Morris to a term of 50 years to life plus a determinate term of 10
years to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in a second
case in which Morris was convicted of assault with a deadly
weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a).)
Morris timely appealed the judgment, and we appointed
counsel. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case,
1 All further references are to the Penal Code.
3
raising no issues, and requesting that we independently review
the record. On April 15, 2026, we advised Morris that he had 30
days to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to
consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no
arguable issues exist and that Morris’s counsel has fully satisfied
his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528
U.S. 259, 279–284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MOOR, J.
WE CONCUR:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
KIM (D.), J.
4