P. v. Ochoa

P. v. Ochoa

Filed 4/30/08 P. v. Ochoa 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(San Joaquin)

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OMAR OCHOA, Defendant and Appellant.

C055761 (Super. Ct. No. SF102963A)

Around January 1, 2007, defendant Omar Ochoa orally copulated his sleeping victim. He entered a no contest plea to oral copulation of an unconscious person. The court denied defendants motion to withdraw his plea^[1]and sentenced him to the stipulated lower term of three years, imposed various fines and fees, awarded 132 days of credit (88 actual and 44 conduct), and ordered sex offender registration pursuant to Penal Code section 290.

Having failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, defendant appeals.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

ROBIE , J.

We concur:

DAVIS, Acting P.J.

HULL, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]Defense counsel made the motion at sentencing, claiming the victim was recanting, indicating that he did not want the matter prosecuted and thought it might have been consensual. Counsel told the court there was a need for more investigation. In denying the motion, the court stated: Sexual victims recant just like victims of domestic violence recant.