People v. Norris CA2/3 ( 2023 )

Filed 10/4/23 P. v. Norris CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B323586
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA154618)
v.
ANTHONY NORRIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Laura Walton, Judge. Affirmed.
Edward Schulman, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Anthony Norris appeals from a judgment of conviction
entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder and
conspiracy to commit murder. Norris’s appellate counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
asking us to independently review the record. Having done so,
we discern no reversible error and affirm the judgment.
A second amended information charged Norris with murder
(Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a); count 1) and
conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1),
count 2). As to count 1, the information also alleged that Norris
personally used a firearm in the commission of the charged
offense, within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5,
subdivision (a). As to count 2, the information alleged 11
different overt acts committed by Norris for purposes of carrying
out the objectives and purposes of the conspiracy.
The information also alleged five aggravating
circumstances for both counts: (1) the offenses involved great
violence, great bodily harm, threat of great bodily harm, and
other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, and
callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1));1 (2) Norris was
armed with and used a weapon at the time of commission of the
above offenses (rule 4.421(a)(2)); (3) Norris has been convicted of
crimes for which consecutive sentences could be imposed but for
which concurrent sentences are being imposed (rule 4.421(a)(7));
(4) the manner in which Norris carried out the offenses indicates
planning, sophistication, and professionalism (rule 4.421(a)(8));
and (5) Norris engaged in violent conduct in committing the
offenses that indicates a serious danger to society (rule
4.421(b)(1)).
1 All rule citations are to the California Rules of Court.
2
The matter proceeded to a jury trial.2 The evidence
established that on December 7, 2020, Kemeo Boyette was
standing outside an apartment complex when a car pulled up and
stopped. Two men exited the car with guns. They fired several
rounds, one of which struck Boyette in his stomach, ultimately
causing his death. Before being transported to the hospital,
Boyette told a police officer that the vehicle involved was a gold
Nissan sedan. A nearby surveillance camera captured the
incident. The recording showed two vehicles, a gold Nissan and a
blue Fiat, passing Boyette’s location three times before stopping
in front of the apartment complex.
In January 2021, a police officer spoke with Norris while he
sat in the front passenger seat of a parked Honda. A blue Fiat
was parked nearby. Norris told the officer that he owned the
blue Fiat, and his statement was recorded on the officer’s body
camera and played for the jury.
Corey McClendon is Norris’s cousin and was originally a
codefendant in the case. He testified at trial pursuant to a
2 In October 2021, before trial, Norris filed a motion
pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. The trial
court heard and denied the motion. Subsequently, in February
2022, the public defender declared a conflict of interest and was
relieved. The trial court then appointed a bar panel attorney to
represent Norris.
In April 2022, Norris’s new attorney filed a motion to set
aside the information under Penal Code section 995, on the basis
that the only evidence against Norris was obtained through a
Perkins operation involving codefendant Corey McClendon.
(Illinois v. Perkins (1990) 496 U.S. 292.) Although it is unclear
from the record when the trial court denied the motion, the
matter proceeded to trial on all counts against Norris in the
information.
3
leniency agreement.
Norris and McClendon were members of the Athens Park
Bloods street gang. McClendon testified that on December 7,
2020, in celebration of “hood day,” he, Norris, another gang
member named Boheart Wilkens, and others were “chilling” at
Athens Park and waiting to go to a party. After spending some
time at the park, McClendon, Norris, and Wilkens got into
McClendon’s “beige, gold Nissan” to go to the party. McClendon
was the driver. Wilkens was giving McClendon directions to the
party, which included several U-turns, when he told McClendon
to stop in front of an apartment building. Wilkens and Norris
jumped out of the car, fired shots, then got back into the car and
McClendon drove away. Another individual, “Popo,” who had
also been at the park and was following them to the party, was
driving the blue Fiat. The Fiat followed the Nissan from the
park, until it stopped ahead of the Nissan at the site of the
shooting. Through expert testimony regarding Norris’s cell
phone’s location data, the prosecution showed that Norris’s cell
phone was in Athens Park just before the shooting, was turned
off for about an hour, and then was turned on just east of the
crime scene and Athens Park. McClendon testified that the
location of the shooting was at the “borderline” between the
Athens Park Bloods and East Coast Crips territories.
At trial, the prosecution played a recording of a
conversation between McClendon and a confidential informant,
recorded while the two were in a holding cell after McClendon’s
arrest. The recording established that McClendon’s trial
testimony was consistent with some of his pre-plea statements.
Norris did not testify.
In July 2022, the jury found Norris guilty of first degree
4
murder. The jury also found true that Norris personally used a
firearm within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.5,
subdivision (a). Additionally, the jury found Norris guilty of
conspiracy to commit murder and that he had committed at least
one of the alleged overt acts in the conspiracy count.
Norris waived a jury trial on the aggravating circumstances
and elected to proceed with a bench trial. The trial court found
Norris had served a prior prison term. The court denied Norris’s
oral motion for a new trial.
The trial court sentenced Norris to an indeterminate term
of 35 years to life, consisting of 25 years to life for the murder and
a 10-year high term for the firearm enhancement alleged in
count 1. The court stayed the sentence on count 2 under Penal
Code section 654. The court imposed a $300 victim restitution
fine, a $300 parole revocation fine, a $30 criminal conviction fee,
and a $40 court security fee. It further ordered Norris to pay
$7,500 to the Victim Compensation Board and $870.25 in direct
victim restitution, both with 10 percent interest.
This appeal timely followed. Court-appointed appellate
counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and asked this
court to independently review the record pursuant to People v.
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We directed appellant’s counsel to
send Norris the record and a copy of the opening brief, and we
advised that within 30 days of the date of the notice, Norris could
submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an
appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished this court to
consider. Appellate counsel also submitted a declaration stating
that he had informed Norris of his right to file a supplemental
brief and had sent Norris the appellate record. Norris did not
submit a supplemental brief.
5
We have independently examined the record submitted on
appeal and are satisfied no arguable issues exist and Norris’s
attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel.
(People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125–126; People v. Wende,
supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
ADAMS, J.
We concur:
EDMON, P. J.
EGERTON, J.
6