People v. Nunally CA2/1

Filed 7/27/23 P. v. Nunally CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B318340

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA249053) v.

JAMAR CORNELL NUNALLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed. Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Jamar Cornell Nunally appeals from the order denying his resentencing petition under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6. We affirm. In 2003, during a carjacking perpetrated by Nunally and Dane Woodsen, Woodsen shot and killed the carjacking victim. Nunally was charged with special circumstances murder, carjacking, and conspiracy. He pleaded guilty to second degree murder. On May 1, 2006, the trial court sentenced him to 15 years to life for the murder and dismissed the other counts in the interest of justice. We affirmed the judgment. On April 12, 2019, Nunally filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95, contending his conviction under a felony murder theory was invalid because he was not the actual killer, and did not act with intent to kill or reckless indifference to human life. The trial court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held an evidentiary hearing. The court found beyond a reasonable doubt Nunally was a major participant in the carjacking and acted with reckless indifference to human life, and therefore was ineligible for resentencing. Nunally appealed and we appointed counsel. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) stating counsel found no arguable issues. We notified Nunally of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he did so. Under Delgadillo, we do not have to review independently the entire record to identify unraised issues, but we must evaluate arguments relating to the postconviction ruling on