P. v. Rodriguez
Filed 12/30/08 P. v. Rodriguez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODRIGO GARCIA RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | H032617 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS071686) |
Defendant Rodrigo Garcia Rodriguez, aged 20, lived with victim, Jane Doe, aged 14, with the permission of Jane Does parents. Both the defendant and victim were from Mexico and believed their relationship to be legal because they had gotten permission from Does parents. Their relationship came to the attention of authorities after Doe became pregnant and sought pre-natal care. After both Doe and defendant confirmed their relationship, defendant was charged with six counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)), each with a special allegation that he engaged in substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 (Pen. Code, 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)), one count of committing lewd acts on a child who was 14 years old (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (c)(1)), and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14. (Pen. Code, 288.5, subd. (a).)
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to one count of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 and admitted the special allegation. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a), 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) After denying defendants request for probation as well as his motion to dismiss the special allegation (Pen. Code 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), the trial court sentenced the defendant to the low-term sentence of three years in prison. Thereafter, on defendants motion, the trial court recalled this sentence, suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years. This timely appeal ensued. On appeal, we appointed counsel to represent defendant.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. Although it is our obligation and practice to notify defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days, we were not able to do so in this case. Pursuant to the declaration of appellate counsel, defendant has been deported to Mexico and counsel has been unable to obtain a current address for defendant.
Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
