Opinion
D071642
05-31-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD ERIC DALTON, Defendant and Appellant.
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. RIF088836) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Becky Dugan, Judge. Affirmed. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but requesting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We offered defendant Todd Eric Dalton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, and he has not done so. After independently reviewing the record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
This is Dalton's second appeal. We previously affirmed his convictions for numerous crimes involving the prolonged sexual abuse of his daughters, who were both under 14 years old at the time they were molested. (People v. Dalton (D069278, Apr. 28, 2016) [nonpub. opn.] (Dalton I).) In particular, we affirmed Dalton's conviction of (1) continuous sexual abuse of one of his daughters in violation of section 288.5 between 1997 and 1998 (count 7), and (2) two counts of lewd and lascivious acts on that same daughter in violation of section 288 between 1998 and 1999 (counts 8 & 9).
We remanded for resentencing on counts 7 through 9 based on conceded trial court errors. The court erroneously sentenced Dalton to an indeterminate prison term on count 7 when the law at the time of the offense required a determinate term. On counts 8 and 9, the court sentenced Dalton to serve consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life based on an apparent belief that consecutive sentences were mandatory, when the court actually retained discretion to select consecutive or concurrent sentences. We directed the court to enter a determinate term on count 7 and to exercise its discretion in determining whether the sentences on counts 7, 8, and 9 should be served concurrently or consecutively. (Dalton I.)
On remand, the court considered its records and the facts, sentencing briefs, parties' arguments, Dalton's statement, and other submitted materials, and resentenced Dalton to serve a consecutive four-year term on count 7 and consecutive 15-years-to-life terms on counts 8 and 9. In doing so, the court explicitly referenced its discretion and the factors it had considered, including Dalton's lack of remorse, lack of insight into the harm he had caused his daughters, the horrendousness of the sexual abuse, his failure to accept responsibility, his absconding during trial, his manipulation of other children during trial proceedings, and other outrageous conduct, mitigated only by his lack of prior criminal record. The court discussed that the many aggravating factors were in no way offset by the single mitigating factor.
Dalton appeals from the order entered after his resentencing hearing.
DISCUSSION
As we have indicated, appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the trial court proceedings. Counsel has presented no argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies one potential issue: Was it an abuse of discretion to impose consecutive sentences on counts 7, 8, and 9?
The issue identified by counsel is not arguable on its merits, and a review of the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented Dalton on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
NARES, J. /s/_________
O'ROURKE, J.