P. v. Gonzalez
Filed 2/25/13 P. v. Gonzalez CA4/2
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This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published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.
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
APPELLATE DISTRICT
TWO
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CRUZ
GARDUNO GONZALEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
E056982
(Super.Ct.No. RIF1103486)
OPINION
APPEAL from
the Superior Court of
County. Jean P.
Leonard, Judge.
Affirmed.
Patricia M.
Ihara, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Cruz
Garduno Gonzalez was charged with one count of lewd and lascivious acts on a
child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a))
two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration by a person 18 years or
older with a child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subdivision (b)), and one
count of sexual intercourse or sodomy by a person 18 years or older with a
child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (a)).
Pursuant to
a plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of oral copulation or
sexual penetration on a child under the age of 10. (§ 288.7, subd. (b).) He agreed to a sentence of 30 years to life,
consisting of two consecutive terms of 15 years to life. The court found a factual basis for the plea
and imposed the agreed-upon sentence, including appropriate credits, and
dismissed the remaining counts.
Defendant filed a timely
other matters occurring after the plea.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel
filed an opening brief raising no
issues and asking this court to independently
review the record. We offered
defendant the opportunity to file any supplemental brief he deemed necessary. Defendant did not file a supplemental
brief.
We have examined the entire record and
have found no sentencing error nor any other post-plea error. We are satisfied that defendant’s attorney
has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting
P. J.
CODRINGTON
J.
Code.
counsel for defendant obtained correction of a clerical error in the abstract
of judgment prior to the filing of the opening brief.
