P. v. Dean
Filed 7/14/10 P. v. Dean CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL DEAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B222031 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA323097) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Michael E. Pastor, Judge. Affirmed.
Randy S. Kravis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent
_______________________
This case comes before us on appeal for a second time, following our remand for resentencing. (People v. Dean (Sept. 9, 2009, B210570) [nonpub. opn.].) Nathaniel Dean was charged by information with two counts of forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2).)[1] It was alleged as to both counts that Dean committed the rapes during the commission of a first-degree burglary with the intent to commit rape and that he committed the rapes during a burglary so as to fall within the provisions of several subdivisions of section 667.61. (People v. Dean, supra, B210570.)
The trial evidence was Charlotte P. awoke to find Dean standing over her bed. He threatened to kill her or hurt her if she were not quiet. Dean climbed on top of her, placed a pillow over her head, and engaged in two separate acts of sexual intercourse with her. At one point, Charlotte P.s young son entered her bedroom to use the bathroom, and Dean soon fled. (People v. Dean, supra, B210570.)
Dean was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life on count 1, with a consecutive eight-year sentence on count 2. The court also imposed two one-year enhancements for prior prison terms, for a total sentence of 25 years to life plus 10 years. (People v. Dean, supra, B210570.)
Dean appealed, arguing, among other things, the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under section 667.6, subdivision (d), and by imposing a court construction penalty under Government Code section 70372, subdivision (a). We concluded consecutive sentences should not have been imposed under section 667.6, subdivision (d) because the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate Dean had a reasonable time to reflect upon his actions between his two acts of rape. We noted, however, consecutive sentences would have been properly imposed here under section 667.6, subdivision (c), which contains no requirement of separate occasions, provided the trial court states reasons for its sentencing choice. We also concluded imposition of the court construction penalty violated the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1198.) We remanded for resentencing but otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Dean, supra, B210570.)
At Deans second hearing on January 21, 2010, the trial court imposed the same prison sentence as before, but this time relying on section 667.6, subdivision (c).[2] As reasons for its sentencing choice, the court pointed to the victims vulnerability in her bedroom at night, Deans use of a pillow to immobilize her, his acts of repeated forcible penetration, and the presence of the victims child during the assaults.
We appointed counsel to represent Dean on appeal. After examination of the record counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. On April 27, 2010, we advised Dean he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied Deans attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
ZELON, J.
We concur:
PERLUSS, P. J.
WOODS, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The trial court did not impose a court construction penalty.
