From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Bashaw

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 13, 2012
E053893 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)

Opinion

E053893

01-13-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE WAYNE BASHAW, Defendant and Appellant.

Victoria Barana, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. RIF149464)


OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge. Affirmed.

Victoria Barana, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

On April 26, 2011, a second amended information charged defendant and appellant Dale Wayne Bashaw (defendant) with four counts of aggravated sexual assault under Penal Code section 269, subdivision (a)(1) (counts 1-3 against Jane Doe 1; count 7 against Jane Doe 2); and four counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 under section 288, subdivision (a) (counts 4-6 against Jane Doe 1; count 8 against Jane Doe 2). The information also alleged that defendant committed these offenses against more than one victim within the meaning of section 667.61, subdivision (e)(5).

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

On April 27, 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to counts 4 and 8, and admitted the multiple victims' enhancement, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 15 years to life in prison and the dismissal of the remaining charges.

Under the version of section 667.61 applicable to defendant, a defendant convicted of violating subdivision (a) of section 288 against more than one victim shall receive a sentence of 15 years to life, unless he qualifies for probation under section 1203.066, subdivision (c). (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c)(7) & (e), Stats. 1998, ch. 936 (A.B. 105), § 9, eff. Sept. 28, 1998.)
--------

On June 3, 2011, the trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life, consisting of two concurrent terms of 15 years to life, one for each count of the conviction. The court awarded defendant 918 days of presentence credit (799 actual plus 119 conduct). Moreover, although the trial court failed to dismiss the remaining charges orally, the minute order sets forth that counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were dismissed in the interest of justice.

On June 24, 2011, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, appealing "the whole judgment or order." Defendant, however, did not file a request for certificate of probable cause.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 25, 2009, Jane Doe 1, born in October of 1995, was interviewed by a social worker specially trained to interview children who are victims of child abuse or sexual assault. Jane Doe 1 was 13 years old at the time of the interview. During the interview, Jane Doe 1 described three occasions when defendant inserted his penis into her vagina. These events occurred between 2000 and 2003, when Jane Doe 1 was between five and eight years old.

Jane Doe 2, born in November of 1997, was similarly interviewed on March 27, 2009. Jane Doe 2 was 11 years old at the time of the interview. She told the interviewer that when she was about five years old, defendant "put his privates inside her privates."

ANALYSIS

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed briefs under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief in both cases, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKinster

Acting P.J.

We concur:

Richli

J.

Miller

J.


Summaries of

People v. Bashaw

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jan 13, 2012
E053893 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Bashaw

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DALE WAYNE BASHAW, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jan 13, 2012

Citations

E053893 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)