P. v. Martinez

P. v. Martinez

Filed 9/23/08 P. v. Martinez CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS JOHN MARTINEZ, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

A121093 (Lake County Super. Ct. Nos. CR5244 & CR032574)

Defendant Nicholas John Martinez, Jr. pleaded no contest to one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under 14. (Pen. Code,  288, subd. (a).) After lengthy appellate proceedings involving sentencing, the trial court resentenced defendant to the middle term of six years in state prison.

Appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.

I.

We summarized the facts in a prior memorandum opinion, People v. Martinez (Nov. 13, 2007, A104728) [nonpub. opn.], and we need not restate the facts at this time. The prior memorandum opinion remains on file with this court, and we hereby incorporate it by reference into this opinion.

Defendant was initially sentenced to the aggravated term of eight years. After lengthy appellate proceedings involving the validity of the aggravating factors, described in our prior memorandum opinion at pages 3-8, we remanded the matter for resentencing.

On remand, the trial court resentenced defendant to the middle term of six years.

II.

We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. The court sentenced defendant to the middle term. Hence, aggravating factors are no longer relevant. The sentence is valid.

There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.

III.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

_

Marchiano, P.J.

We concur:

_

Swager, J.

_

Margulies, J.

Publication Courtesy of California free legal resources.

Analysis and review provided by Spring Valley Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com