P. v. M.
Filed 2/2/06 P. v. M. CA2/4


This case has been further edited following review of a change of the charges, and ultimate ly issuance of a certificate of rehabilitation. Further investigation took place in that discussion with the subject's probation officer preceded the edits.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED


California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.




IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA





SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT





DIVISION FOUR






THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.
B180723

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.TA074411)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria M. Chavez, Judge; Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed.

Edi M. O. Faal for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Corey J. Robins, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

D.M. appeals from judgment entered, order granting probation, following his no contest plea to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 years, count 1, (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)). As part of the negotiated plea, a charge of lewd act upon a child, count 2, (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)) and a charge of oral copulation of a person under 16 years of age, count 3, (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2)) were dismissed. For reasons stated in the opinion, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

As the facts are not in dispute, it will suffice to observe that appellant met Ms. P., who was 14 years and 5 months at the time, through a â€