P. v. Lute
Filed 1/21/10 P. v. Lute CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DOUG GLEN LUTE, Defendant and Appellant. | C061112 (Super. Ct. No. 02-4327) |
In November 2003 a jury found defendant Doug Glen Lute guilty of committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under 14 years of age. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).)[1] The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on five years of formal probation subject to specified terms and conditions, including that defendant was to participate in sex offender counseling and was not to have contact with children, including his own, unless accompanied by a preapproved adult. The court imposed fees and fines, including a $200 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Lute (Mar. 13, 2006, C047005) [nonpub. opn.].)
In November 2006 a declaration alleging a violation of probation as a result of defendants admitted contact with his children was filed, then later stricken and probation was reinstated. A second declaration was filed in August 2008 alleging defendant violated probation by being terminated from sex offender counseling and by attending an amusement park in violation of the courts order. Following a contested hearing in December 2008, the court found the allegations in the declaration true, terminated probation and sentenced defendant to six years in state prison, minus applicable presentence custody credit. The court reiterated the previously ordered [$200] restitution fine and imposed another $200 restitution fine ( 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $200 parole revocation fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole ( 1202.45).[2]
Defendant appeals. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BUTZ , J.
We concur:
SCOTLAND , P. J.
HULL, 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] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] On August 28, 2009, the trial court filed an amended abstract of judgment striking the $200 restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). On September 15, 2009, the trial court filed a second amended abstract of judgment striking the $200 probation revocation fine ( 1202.44) reflected in the original and first amended abstracts.
