P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 1/11/10 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CARLOS GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | B214521 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA098440) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Paul A. Bacigalupo, Judge. Affirmed.
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
An amended information alleged that, defendant, Juan Carlos Gonzalez, committed the following offenses: aggravated assault of a child (Pen. Code,[1] 269, subd. (a)(1) (count 1)); sexual penetration by foreign object ( 289, subd. (a)(1) (count 2); forcible lewd act upon child ( 288, subd. (b)(1) (counts 3 and 4)); and lewd act upon child (counts 5, 6 and 7). ( 288, subd. (a).) Counts 5, 6 and 7 were charged as lesser included offenses as to the other counts. A jury convicted defendant of a lesser included offense of lewd act upon child on counts 3 and 4. The jury found defendant guilty as charged in count 5. The jury acquitted defendant on counts 1 and 2. The trial court sentenced defendant to a 12-year term. Defendant was ordered to pay a restitution fine of $500 ( 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a parole revocation fine of $500. ( 1202.45.) Defendant received a total presentence custody credit of 261 consisting of 227 days of actual custody plus 34 days of conduct credit. On December 4, 2009, on our own motion, we judicially noticed the abstract of judgment which was filed on March 26, 2009.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. Instead, counsel requested this court to independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On November 4, 2009, we advised defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or arguments he wishes us to consider. On November 13, 2009, the Wende notice was returned and re-sent to defendant at his correct address. No response has been received. We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendants appellate attorney has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no argument exists favorable to defendant. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
ARMSTRONG, J.
MOSK, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
