Alvarez
Filed 11/12/13 P. v. Alvarez CA5
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
LUIS ENRIQUE
ALVAREZ,
Defendant and
Appellant.
F065300
(Super.
Ct. No. BF137298A)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Robert
L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office
of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Pursuant to
a plea agreement, appellant, Luis Enrique Alvarez, on April 9, 2012, pleaded no
contest to one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14
(Pen. Code, § 288.5; count 5) and three counts of committing a lewd or
lascivious act against a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a),
counts 6, 8, 9). One of the terms of the
plea agreement was that appellant would be sentenced to 22 years in
prison. On June 6, 2012, the court
imposed the agreed-upon 22-year prison term, calculated as follows: on count 5, the upper term of 16 years, plus two
years on each of the remaining counts.
Appellant
filed a timely notice of appeal. Insofar as the record reveals, appellant did
not request, and the court did not issue, a certificate of probable cause (Pen.
Code, § 1237.5).
name="_ftnref2" title="">[1]
Appellant’s appointed appellate
counsel has filed an opening brief which summarizes the pertinent facts, with
citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks that this court
independently review the record. (
436.) Appellant has not responded to
this court’s invitation to submit additional briefing. We affirm.
FACTS
The report
of the probation officer states that a Bakersfield Police Department report
indicates the following: On June 8,
2011, the victim (V.), who was then 11 years old, told her mother, I.P., that
appellant—from whom I.P. was separated but who I.P. sometimes allowed to take
care of V.—“had been touching [V.] inappropriately.†Appellant, when subsequently questioned by
police, stated “he inserted the tip of his penis … [in V.’s] vagina
approximately four times,†most recently in May 2011, and that he had touched
V.’s vagina with his fingers two to three times when she was eight years old,
three to four times when she was nine years old, three times when she was 10
years old and three times when she was 11 years old.
DISCUSSION
Following
independent review of the record, we have concluded that no reasonably
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J., and Peña, J.
name="_ftn2" title="">[1] Appellant indicated on his notice of appeal (notice) that
his appeal “challenges the validity of the plea or admission.†The notice informed appellant that given his
challenge to the validity of the plea, he was required to “complete the Request
for Certificate of Probable Cause on the other side of this form.†(Unnecessary italics omitted.) However, on the copy of the notice contained
in the appellate record, the reverse side of the notice is blank, and there is
no indication in the record appellant requested a certificate of probable cause
in some other way.
