P. v. Velardes-Gomez
Filed 10/14/09 P. v. Velardes-Gomez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMON VELARDES-GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | E047923 (Super.Ct.No. SWF025430) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Mark E. Petersen, Judge. Affirmed.
Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Ramon Velardes-Gomez appeals his jury conviction for one count of failing to register as a sex offender within five days of changing his residence (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and three counts of failing to update his registration as a sex offender within five days of his birthday (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)). We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
At defendants trial, a deputy testified he conducted a traffic stop on March 24, 2008, and defendant was a passenger in the vehicle. Defendant provided his identification. A records check revealed defendant could be a sex offender who had not complied with registration requirements. Defendant did not know his address, but was able to provide the deputy with a local street name of where he was living. The deputy let defendant go but notified an investigator assigned to a registration enforcement team. The investigator did some research and determined defendant had last registered in California in 2004 and had not registered here or in any other state from 2005 through 2008.
On March 27, 2008, the investigator made contact with defendant by going to the ranch where he worked and lived. The investigator confronted defendant with the registration form he completed on August 25, 1998, which states, My responsibility to register is a lifetime requirement. Defendant indicated he understood this statement and told the investigator it was his error he did not register as required. With defendants consent, the investigator searched defendants room and found correspondence bearing the dates April 12, 2007, October 3, 2007, and December 27, 2007, all of which indicated defendant lived at this address. The manager of the ranch also testified that defendant began working at the ranch in the fall of 2003.
Defendant testified in his own defense. He admitted he was convicted of a qualifying sexual offense in 1993. He said he knew he had to register but had not done so. He also confirmed he had been working at the ranch since 2003.
The jury found defendant guilty of failing to register as a sex offender within five days of changing his residence (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(A)) (count 1) and three counts of failing to update his registration as a sex offender within five days of his birthday (Pen. Code, 290, subd. (a)(1)(D)) (counts 2-4). Defendant then admitted four prior strike offenses from June 30, 1993, for committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).
At the sentencing hearing on March 10, 2009, the court granted defendants motion to dismiss three of the prior strikes. The court then sentenced defendant to a total of 10 years in state prison. To reach the total term, the court imposed the upper term of three years on count 1, doubled to six years for the prior strike. On counts 2, 3, and 4, the court imposed consecutive terms of 16 months on each count, calculated as one-third the midterm, and with each term doubled as a result of the prior strike.
DISCUSSION
On March 13, 2009, defendant filed a notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth the facts and procedural history, raising no specific issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. On August 6, 2009, we offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he failed to do. We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
GAUT
J.
KING
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
