P. v. Wright
Filed 5/27/10 P. v. Wright 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. LARRY WRIGHT et al., Defendants and Appellants. | H033523 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. EE806417) |
Defendant Larry Wright and his boyfriend, defendant Alexie Joseph Japor engaged in sexual activity, including sodomy, oral copulation and masturbation with two boys under the age of 14 over a period of 11 months. Both defendants were charged with multiple counts of lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) It was further alleged that the defendants had engaged in substantial sexual conduct with the victims (Pen. Code, 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)), and that the charged offenses fell within the One Strike law. (Penal Code, 667.61 (b) and (e).)
Both defendants appeal from a judgment entered after they pleaded guilty to multiple counts and admitted the allegations as charged. The trial court sentenced defendant Wright to 30 years to life consecutive to 8 years in prison. The trial court sentenced defendant Japor to 15 years to life consecutive to 8 years in prison. The court imposed a variety of fines and fees against both defendants. Both defendant waived all credit for time served.
After this court granted both defendants relief from default for failing to timely file a notice of appeal, this appeal ensued. On appeal, appointed counsel filed opening briefs which state the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendants of their right to submit written argument in their own behalf within 30 days. Thirty days has elapsed and we have received nothing from the defendants. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. We conclude that there are no arguable issues. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.
