Court Opinion

ID: 9409646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 21:03:53.350869+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:52.332390
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/18/23 P. v. Visor-Wimsatt CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E080684

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB19454)

 NICOLE RENEE VISOR-WIMSATT,                                             OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. 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.

                                                             1
       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)).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.2 (Visor-Wimsatt, supra, E024698/E024923.)

       On October 24, 2022, defendant filed a second petition for resentencing pursuant

to former section 1170.95.3 At a prima facie hearing on January 25, 2023, at which

defendant was represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.

       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.

       1   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

       2 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.].)

       3 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.

                                              2
       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.)

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                              McKINSTER
                                                                              Acting P. J.
We concur:

MILLER
                          J.

FIELDS
                          J.

                                            3