Filed 10/4/24 P. v. Sapp CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083274 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF114377) NATHANIEL DECARLO SAPP, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Dismissed.

Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On December 29, 2005, a jury found defendant and appellant Nathaniel DeCarlo Sapp guilty of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a), count 1.)1 The jury

further found true two felony-murder special-circumstance allegations: that defendant committed the murder while engaged in the crimes of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)) and carjacking (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(L)). The court sentenced defendant to life without parole.2 (Sapp I, supra, E040320; Sapp II, supra, E072769; Sapp III, supra, E076694.)

On January 7, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95,3 which the superior court summarily denied. (Sapp II, supra, E072769; Sapp III, supra, E076694.) Defendant appealed. We reversed and remanded the matter for reconsideration. (Ibid.)

On remand, the superior court reconsidered the matter and, again, denied defendant’s petition. Defendant appealed, again contending the court erred in denying his petition. We reversed and remanded the matter for an evidentiary hearing. (Sapp III, supra, E076694.)

On remand, the court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing, after which the court, again, denied defendant’s petition. The court found “overwhelming evidence that the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree as either the actual slayer or as a major participant acting with a reckless disregard.”

Therefore, the court ruled “beyond a reasonable doubt that the People have proved that the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree.”

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738,4 and Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, setting forth a statement of facts, a statement of the case, requesting that we independently review the record for error, and identifying two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court followed the proper procedures when it denied defendant’s petition after an evidentiary hearing; and (2) whether sufficient evidence supports the court’s findings.

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed one. 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.)

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J

MENETREZ J.