People v. Nolasco CA3

Filed 1/30/25 P. v. Nolasco CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100863

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 98F00851)

v.

ESTALIN NOLASCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Estalin Nolasco appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for a Franklin1 hearing seeking an evidence preservation proceeding. His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and asks that we exercise our discretion to review the record for arguable issues on appeal. This court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief identifying People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479 (Briscoe) and asks this court to allow him “to continue with [his]

1 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261.

1

Franklin appeal” in light of that case. Having considered defendant’s supplemental brief in accordance with People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216, we affirm. BACKGROUND The amended complaint deemed an information charged defendant with murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)2 It further alleged defendant discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and committed the murder while he was released from custody on a prior pending offense. (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b),(c), & (d), 12022.1, subd. (b).) Finally, the information alleged the special circumstance that defendant committed the murder while he was engaged in the commission of an attempted robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) The essential facts of the case are set forth in People v. Nolasco (March 18, 2002, C033556 [nonpub. opn.].)3 “On January 22, 1998, around 7:16 p.m., defendant fired six to eight gunshots into [the victim], killing him while he sat in his car in front of defendant’s house. Defendant then drove the car away from the scene and crashed it into a tree.” (Ibid.) Defendant told his girlfriend, “he was trying to ‘jack,’ i.e., rob [the victim] because defendant needed money for his lawyer.” (Ibid.) At trial, defendant “admitted killing [the victim], but claimed he did so in self-defense when [the victim] pulled a gun on him” during a drug deal that went wrong. (Ibid.) In 1999, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found the enhancements and special circumstances true. The trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole for the murder plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement and an additional two years for the on-bail enhancement.