People v. Orlop CA4/1

Filed 3/2/23 P. v. Orlop CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080897

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. INF1500310)

VERNE RAYMOND ORLOP, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, William S. Lebov, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Yolo Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Verne R. Orlop, Jr., in pro. per.; and Kevin D. Sheehy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2017, a jury convicted Verne Orlop of first degree murder and found true an allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon (knife) in the

commission of the offense (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187 & 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

court found true a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)), a serious felony prior

conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).2 Orlop was sentenced to of 50 years to life plus five years for the serious felony prior. Orlop appealed and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Orlop (July 25, 2019, D075133) [nonpub. opn.).) In 2022, Orlop filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 (formerly section 1170.95). The court appointed counsel and held a status hearing. At the hearing, the prosecutor advised the court that Orlop was prosecuted as the actual killer of the victim. The prosecutor advised that no jury instructions were given on aiding and abetting, felony murder, or natural and probable consequences. Defense counsel advised the court that the prosecutor’s representations were accurate. Based upon the representations, the trial court summarily denied the petition for resentencing. Orlop filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error, consistent with the Wende procedure. We offered Orlop the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with two lengthy supplemental briefs. We will discuss those supplemental briefs later in this opinion. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a statement of facts from our opinion in the previous appeal. (People v. Orlop, supra, D075133.) We will adopt that statement here for convenience.