P. v. Aguilar
Filed 1/22/13 P.
v. Aguilar CA2/8
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
FELIPE VALLE
AGUILAR,
Defendant and Appellant.
B242255
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
BA384074)
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of
County.
Sam Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.
Linn
Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________________
Felipe Aguilar pleaded no contest to one count of a lewd act upon a
child under the age of 10 years (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)),
and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years
(§ 288, subd. (a)). In return, the trial
court sentenced Aguilar to an aggregate term of 16 years in
FACTS
Leslie
S. and her mother contacted police and reported sexual abuse by Aguilar, the
husband of the family’s babysitter.
Police interviewed other minors who were cared for in the Aguilar
home. Another child, Nancy T., also
reported sexual abuse.
In
May 2011, the People filed an information charging Aguilar with the following
charges, involving minors under the age of 10 and 14: oral copulation/sexual
penetration of Leslie S. (count 1, § 288.7, subd. (b)); continuous sexual abuse
of Leslie S. (count 2, § 288.5, subd. (a)); lewd act upon Leslie S. (count
3, § 288, subd. (a)); continuous sexual abuse of Nancy T. (count 4,
§ 288.5, subd. (a)); sending harmful matter to a minor (count 5, §
288.2, subd. (a)); and possession of matter depicting minor engaging in sexual
conduct (count 6, § 311.11, subd. (a)).
As to counts, 2, 3, and 4, the information alleged the offenses were
committed against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61,
subdivisions (b) and (c), and section 1203.066, subdivision (a)(7).
Aguilar
was represented by private counsel. The case was called for trial and jury
selection began. The next day, before
the jurors returned to the courtroom, the parties discussed offers and
counteroffers, ultimately reaching an agreement contemplating a 16-year
term. Aguilar waived his
no contest to count 3 (lewd act upon Leslie S.; a child under the age of 14 years;
§ 288, subd. (a)) and count 4 (continuous sexual
abuse of Nancy T., a child under the age of 14 years; § 288.5, subd.
(a)). The trial court ordered a
Static-99 report, and set a sentencing
hearing.
Prior to the
sentencing hearing, Aguilar filed two motions on his own behalf – a motion to
withdraw his plea and a request for a Marsden
hearing. The trial court granted
Aguilar’s oral motion to relieve his private counsel. The court then appointed the Public Defender
to represent Aguilar and the matter was continued to allow new counsel time to
review the case.
Thereafter
the deputy public defender representing Aguilar filed a motion to withdraw his
plea. In an accompanying declaration,
Aguilar stated he was “coerced†to enter his plea by his retained counsel. The trial court denied Aguilar’s motion to
withdraw his plea.
The trial
court sentenced Aguilar to a total aggregate term of 16
years in state prison as follows: an upper term of 16 years on count 4, and a
concurrent upper term of 8 years on count 3. Custody credits were determined and fines and
assessments were imposed. The court
ordered Aguilar to register as a convicted sex offender.
Aguilar
filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Aguilar on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
requesting that this court review the record on appeal for arguable
issues. On September 12, 2012, we notified Aguilar by letter that he could submit any claims,
arguments or issues which he wished us to review. Aguilar has not responded to our letter.
We
have independently reviewed the record on appeal, and are satisfied that
Aguilar’s appointed counsel fulfilled his duty, and that no
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
The
order is affirmed.
BIGELOW,
P. J.
We concur:
FLIER,
J.
GRIMES, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1]
references are to the Penal Code.
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118
[criminal defendant has right to hearing on whether grounds exist to replace
court-appointed defense counsel].)
