Opinion
C083496
09-08-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SEAN MICHAEL BLACKSHEAR, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. CRF150000526)
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
I. BACKGROUND
Between August 2014 and November 2014, defendant Sean Michael Blackshear lived with A.W. and her four-year-old son in her home. About eight months after defendant moved out, the son revealed to A.W. that defendant had put his penis in the son's mouth and anus.
Defendant entered a negotiated no contest plea to lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts (sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger, oral copulation with a child 10 years of age or younger) and allegation (substantial sexual conduct with a child under the age of 14 years). He also entered a Cruz waiver. If he abided by the conditions of release on his own recognizance pending sentencing, he would receive no more than three years in state prison. In the event he violated the conditions of release, he would receive the upper term of eight years.
People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.
Defendant was never released due to holds of other counties. --------
The court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for three years. The remaining counts and allegation were dismissed.
Defendant appeals. The trial court denied defendant's request for a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
In response to appellant's counsel's request, the trial court modified the judgment, awarding one additional day of presentence custody credit. This court received the amended abstract, reflecting the additional day of credit.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
RAYE, P. J. /S/_________
MAURO, J.