Opinion
E080684
07-18-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICOLE RENEE VISOR-WIMSATT, Defendant and Appellant.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FSB19454 Alexander R. Martinez, Judge. Dismissed.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER, ACTING P. J.
On February 11, 1999, a jury convicted defendant and appellant, Nicole Renee Visor-Wimsatt, of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). The jury additionally found true an allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offenses (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 26 years to life. (Visor-Wimsatt, supra, E024698/E024923.)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
We take judicial notice of our prior nonpublished opinion from defendant's appeal from the original judgment. (People v. Visor-Wimsatt (July 17, 2000, E024698/E024923) [nonpub. opn.].)
On October 24, 2022, defendant filed a second petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. At a prima facie hearing on January 25, 2023, at which defendant was represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.
Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) A court denied defendant's first petition for resentencing on February 28, 2020.
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case and requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which she has not done. We noted that if she did not file a supplemental brief, we could dismiss the appeal. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
We concur: MILLER, J. FIELDS, J.