P. v. Pinnick
Filed 12/18/08 P. v. Pinnick 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH DANIEL PINNICK, Defendant and Appellant. | C058213 (Super. Ct. No. CM027284) |
In June 2007, the mother of defendant Joseph Daniel Pinnick opened his bedroom door and saw her six-year-old granddaughter (defendant’s niece) standing in front of a television that was showing a pornographic video.[1] When the mother walked into the room, defendant jumped up and was “messing” with his pants. The victim told interviewers that her uncle had taken her into his bedroom and showed her “bad” movies. He placed one hand on his penis and the other on her vagina. She told him to stop but he shook his head “no.” When her grandmother entered the room, defendant fled to the bathroom.
Defendant pled guilty to lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).)[2] In exchange, two related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.[3]
Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years, awarded 229 days’ custody credit and 34 days’ conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $720 sex crime fine (§ 290.3), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The trial court ordered the clerk to separately state the components of the sex crime fine on the abstract of judgment.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant 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 elapsed, and we 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.
SIMS , Acting P. J.
We concur:
DAVIS , J.
HULL , J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
