Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County Super.Ct.No. RIF108465. Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
HOLLENHORST, Acting P.J.
A jury found defendant and appellant Radames Camacho guilty of nine counts of forcible lewd acts on M.B. (Penal Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1); counts 2-10), and one count of a lewd act on L.G. (§ 288, subd. (a), count 11.) The jury found true the enhancement allegation that defendant had committed the offenses against more than one victim. (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5).) The trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 56 years for the substantive offenses, plus a consecutive life term for the enhancement. He received credit for time served in the amount of 88 actual days and 13 days of conduct credits, pursuant to section 2933.1, for a total of 101 days of credits. Defendant appealed. This court reversed the judgment, finding that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions for section 288, subdivision (b). We ordered the convictions to be modified to violations of section 288, subdivision (a), and remanded the matter for resentencing. (Case No. E037402.)
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted.
There appears to be some confusion in the record regarding the lewd act on L.G. The court’s 10/29/04 minute order states “Count 016 read as count 11.” Consequently, we refer to the count pertaining to L.G. as count 11.
At the resentencing hearing, the court imposed the indeterminate term of 15 years to life as to count 2 and deemed it the principal count. As to counts 3 through 10, the court imposed the indeterminate terms of 15 years to life, to run concurrent to count 2. As to count 11, the court imposed the indeterminate term of 15 years to life, to run consecutive to count 2. Defendant was sentenced to a total indeterminate term of 30 years to life. He also received credit for time served in the amount of 88 actual days and 13 days of conduct credits, for a total of 101 days of credits.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal following the resentencing hearing. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
For purposes of this appeal, we adopt the statement of facts as set forth in this court’s prior opinion in case number E037402.
DISCUSSION
Dependant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case and three potential arguable issues, including whether the trial court erred when it imposed consecutive indeterminate terms, whether its decision to impose consecutive terms violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights (Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 856, 166 L.Ed.2d 856]), and whether the court imposed the proper amount of presentence credits. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. We note that, subsequent to filing the Wende brief, appellate counsel filed an ex parte motion for the trial court to correct the amount of presentence custody credits awarded to defendant at the time of resentencing. The trial court granted the motion on January 22, 2008.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no remaining arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI, J., KING, J.