People v. Sapp CA4/2 ( 2024 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
1
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.”
2 We take judicial notice of this court’s unpublished opinions in People v. Sapp
(June 26, 2007, E040320) (Sapp I), from defendant’s appeal of the judgment; People v.
Sapp (May 26, 2020, E072769) (Sapp II), from his appeal of the initial denial of his
former section 1170.95 petition; and People v. Sapp (Sept. 20, 2022, E076694) (Sapp
III), defendant’s appeal from the denial of his petition after this court reversed and
remanded the matter. (Evid. Code, § 459.)
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.)
2
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.)
4 In People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), the California
Supreme Court held that Wende and Anders procedures do not apply to appeals from the
denial of postjudgment proceedings. (Delgadillo, at pp. 224-226.) Appellate counsel
contends that since Delgadillo applied to the denial of a section 1172.6 case at the prima
facie stage, rather than after an evidentiary hearing as here, we are required to apply
Wende and Anders procedures to the instant case. We do not so narrowly construe the
holding of Delgadillo. We broadly interpret Delgadillo as applying to all postjudgment
proceedings. (Ibid.)
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J
MENETREZ
J.
4