Opinion
G061717
08-24-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDUARDO FLORES, Defendant and Appellant.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 19CF0967 Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
SANCHEZ, J.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant Eduardo Flores of one count of sexual intercourse with a minor 10 years of age or younger in violation of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a). The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 25 years to life in prison. He filed a notice of appeal, and his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified an issue to assist us in conducting our independent review. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf and has done so.
We have examined the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders and have found no arguable issues on appeal. The issue suggested by counsel does not have merit. We therefore affirm.
FACTS
When C.M. was four or five years old, she moved from Mexico to the United States to live with relatives. Those relatives included defendant, his parents, her aunt, her grandmother, and two uncles.
On July 11, 2011, while C.M. was in the garage changing her clothes, defendant walked in, picked her up, and carried her through the kitchen and to his bedroom. He placed C.M. on the bed, closed and locked the bedroom door, and turned on the television. Defendant then removed C.M.'s underwear, took off his pants, covered her mouth, and placed his penis in her vagina. While his penis was in her vagina, he moved his body back and forth. C.M. cried and tried to tell defendant to stop because it hurt. He stopped when he heard a knock on the door.
During a police interview in April 2019, defendant admitted that he had carried C.M. to his bedroom, locked the door, pulled down her underwear, and "did her."
DISCUSSION
Defendant's counsel has suggested the following issue for our consideration: "Whether sufficient evidence was presented that [defendant] had sexual intercourse with a child ten years or younger?" The issue has no merit.
In his supplemental brief, defendant requested we review the "Franklin motion." He states he read that motion while in the county jail and he has it with him in prison. The purpose of a Franklin motion is to develop a record for an eventual youth offender parole hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439. (People v. Hardin (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 273, 280, review granted Jan. 11, 2023, S277487.) A Franklin motion does not appear in the record on appeal and is not subject to our review in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J. MOTOIKE, J.