Opinion
F048706
4-19-2007
In re MICHAEL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL R., Defendant and Appellant.
Rita Barker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. French, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Vartabedian, A.P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
In October 2004, 10-year-old V. R. reported that her brother, appellant, Michael R, who was then 17 years old, had been sexually abusing her for some time. According to V. R., Michael sometimes put his private part in her private part in the front of her body and in the back. Once, he put his mouth on her private part. Their 13-year-old brother, C. R., witnessed some of the acts of molestation.
On December 1, 2004, the district attorney filed a petition charging Michael with one count of the continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5).
Following a contested adjudication hearing on June 13, 2005, during which the victim and C.R. testified, the court found the petition allegations true.
On August 8, 2005, the court set Michaels maximum term of confinement at 12 years and committed Michael to the California Youth Authority. The court also found that Michaels offense was listed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b), and ordered him to register as a sex offender.
CYA is now known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (Gov. Code, §§ 12838, 12838.5). For purposes of clarity, we shall refer to it as CYA.
Judge William Silveira presided over Michaels adjudication and disposition hearings.
On August 19, 2005, Michael filed a timely appeal.
On February 6, 2006, Michaels appellate counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts, with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
On February 7, 2006, this court sent a letter to Michael advising him that if he wanted to file a supplemental brief, he had 30 days to do so.
On March 16, 2006, Michael received the letter.
On March 30, 2006, this court issued a Wende opinion in this matter.
On April 19, 2006, Michael filed a petition for rehearing alleging that he did not receive notice of his right to file a supplemental brief until after the time for doing so had expired because he was moved from one institution to another.
On April 19, 2006, this court denied Michael petition for rehearing.
On May 10, 2006, Michael filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court.
On July 26, 2006, the Supreme Court granted Michaels petition for review.
On February 7, 2007, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to this court with directions to provide Michael with "an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief and to resolve the appeal in accordance with People v. Wende[,] [supra,] 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106."
On March 26, 2007, Michael filed a supplemental brief which asks this court to consider the following points: 1) he was prosecuted without any evidence; 2) some evidence against him was not used at his adjudication hearing; 3) Michael agreed to give a polygraph test, but it was never administered because he was telling the truth and the court was wrong; 4) there was a lack of witnesses on either side; 5) Michael was never told that he could produce his own witnesses; 6) if he had known he could have changed public defenders, he would have; 7) Judge William Silveira was biased against him; 8) Michaels defense counsel was not present when he was turned away by the court or at his disposition hearing on April 8, 2006; 9) after he was committed to the CYA, Michaels brother and sister changed their stories; 10) to Michaels knowledge, the only investigation defense counsel conducted was having the defense investigator talk to some people; and 11) his failure to benefit from counseling he took during his trial proves that Judge Silveira was biased against him and prejudged his case.
We have considered these points and find there is no merit to any of them. Specifically, we note that many of Michaels contentions challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the courts finding that Michael committed the charged continuous molestation of a child offense.
"In reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, we review the record in its entirety, considering the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party, and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] We do not sit as the trier of fact and determine whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, we determine if substantial evidence supports the conclusion of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Substantial evidence is evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value [citation] and the testimony of a single witness is sufficient evidence to support the verdict. [Citation.]" (People v. Zavala (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 758, 766, emphasis added.)
Here, the victim testified that Michael sexually molested her on an ongoing basis for several years and her testimony was corroborated by C. R. Thus, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to sustain the courts findings.
Concerning the claim of judicial bias, our review of the record does not disclose any evidence that Judge Silveira was biased against Michael or that he prejudged his case. Additionally, the remaining contentions are not cognizable on appeal because they rely on information outside the record.
Thus, following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.