Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD223403, David M. Gill, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
A jury found Jose Arredondo guilty of three counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) with substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and more than one victim in the case (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c), (e)). The court sentenced him to prison for three consecutive terms of 15 years to life, for a total of 45 years to life. Arredondo appeals. We affirm.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
Count One
One night in the summer of 2007, 10-year-old V. spent the night with Arredondo (her paternal grandfather) and her paternal grandmother. They were the only three people in the house. V. became scared during the night and crawled into bed with Arredondo and her grandmother.
V. awoke during the night and found her pajama pants and underwear were down. She pulled up her pants and went back to sleep. Later, V.'s grandmother got up and took a shower. While the grandmother was gone, V. again awoke to find her pants down. V. felt pressure and turned to see Arredondo holding her hips and putting his penis in her anus. This lasted about 20 seconds and hurt. V. moved away and pulled up her pants. Her grandmother returned to the room and V. left the bed. For a few hours afterward, V. felt bruised. Arredondo did not say anything during the molestation.
Counts Two and Three
Two times during the summer of 2007, 11-year-old M. spent the night at Arredondo's home with V., her cousin. M. and V. slept on the living room floor. Arredondo was the only male at the house.
During the first sleepover (count two), Arredondo awakened M., who was on her side. Arredondo pulled down her pants and underwear. He pressed his body against hers from behind. He rubbed M.'s vagina, put two fingers inside and pushed them in and out, hurting M. She pretended to be asleep. Arredondo pulled up M.'s pants and left. He did not say anything during the molestation. M. did not see Arredondo's face, but she saw his hands.
Some weeks later, during another sleepover (count three), M. woke up and felt Arredondo behind her. She was on her side, and he pushed her so that her back was to the floor and he was beside her. M. felt Arredondo's private part against her leg. His private part felt hard. M. pretended to be asleep. Arredondo pulled up her shirt and rubbed her stomach, then pulled down her pajama pants and underwear. Arredondo put his fingers inside M.'s vagina and moved them in and out. This hurt M. a lot, so she moved. Arredondo pulled up her pants and left. Arredondo did not say anything during the molestation. M. did not look at him, but she saw his hands.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel lists as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether the convictions on counts two and three should be reversed for insufficient evidence identifying Arredondo as the perpetrator; (2) whether the court made a premature decision to impose consecutive sentences and whether the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences on all counts; (3) whether the court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences on counts two and three when the underlying acts spanned several weeks in the summer of 2007; (4) whether the court abused its discretion by imposing two consecutive sentences of 15 years to life on counts two and three in this multi-victim case; (5) whether the court committed prejudicial error in stating, when instructing on the elements of the offense, that it did not "think there's a serious issue or contest" whether the victims were 14 at the time of the offenses, "[b]ut it is an element that has to be proved;" (6) whether the court erred in admitting, or erred in the scope of admission of, testimony by the People's expert to dispel myths and explain the behavior of sexual abuse victims generally, or whether the court erred in instructing how to use that testimony; (7) whether the court abused its discretion or committed prejudicial error by modifying the instruction on the allegation of substantial sexual conduct after the case had been submitted to the jury; and (8) whether the $10,000 restitution fine was proper.
We granted Arredondo permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Arredondo has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, J., McDONALD, J.