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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

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.

A court denied defendant’s first petition for resentencing on February 28, 2020.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS McKINSTER Acting P. J.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.