P. v. Crocker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/23/13  P. v. Crocker CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

 

FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,         Plaintiff and Respondent,                     v.   RONALD WILLIAM CROCKER,         Defendant and Appellant.

G047730            (Super. Ct. No. 10CF0197)            O P I N I O N

 

                        Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Craig E. Robison, Judge.  Affirmed.

                        Christian C. Buckley,
under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        No appearance by
Plaintiff and Respondent.

 

*                      *                      *

 

                        Defendant Ronald William
Crocker pleaded guilty to a violation of Penal Code section 288.7,
subdivision (b) (oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger by a
person 18 years old or older).  The court
sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison.

                        We appointed href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">counsel to represent defendant on
appeal.  Appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S.
738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] (Anders)
and People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) setting forth
the facts of the case and requesting that we independently review the record.  Counsel stated he was unable to find any
potential issues for review. 

                        On July 24, 2013, this court provided defendant with
30 days to file written argument on his own behalf.  That period of time has passed, and we have
received no communication from defendant.

                        Testimony at the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">preliminary hearing by Santa Ana Police
Officer Camillo Kim disclosed that the four-year-old victim’s mother reported
her child said defendant, their next door neighbor, “had licked his pee-pee.”  Santa Ana Detective Eva Lopez testified on
proceedings during a forensic interview at the cast facility.  The victim stated defendant’s tongue touched
his “pee-pee.”  The parties stipulated
that penile DNA swabs were taken from the victim and his underwear, and that
defendant’s DNA was present on both swabs. 


                        We have examined the entire record and reviewed counsel’s >Anders/Wende brief.  We are satisfied the court properly advised
defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea before accepting the
guilty plea.  The sentence meets the
requirements of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b).  Defendant’s appellate counsel has fully
complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issue exists.  By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the >Anders/Wende procedure and our review of
the record, defendant has received adequate and effective appellate review of
the judgment entered against him in this case. 
(Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278 [120 S.Ct. 746, 145
L.Ed.2d 756]; People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.)

DISPOSITION

 

                        The judgment is
affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                    RYLAARSDAM,
ACTING P. J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

BEDSWORTH, J.

 

 

 

IKOLA, J.