Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 06F2809
ROBIE, J.
Several minor females responded to newspaper advertisements offering $600 for modeling sessions. The victims met with defendant Christopher Lee Crowell at his home or a local motel. He showed them pictures of other females, some of whom were nude. He also showed them pictures of him engaging in sexual intercourse with females. Then he interviewed the victims, photographed their identification, and photographed the victims clothed and wearing thong underwear and bras. He later contacted them and arranged paid photo shoots during which the victims posed in clothing, underwear, bikinis, lingerie, and, in the case of one victim, nude.
In June 2006, defendant pled guilty to using a minor as a model to create child pornography and four counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Ten related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver. Imposition of sentence on the charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the conditions, among others, that he serve 160 days in jail and pay a $335 fine, a $100 restitution fine, a $100 suspended probation fine and have no contact with the victims. Sentence on the charge of using a minor as a model was delayed for five years and was to be dismissed if no probation violations were sustained.
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
In January 2007, a petition was filed alleging that defendant violated the no-contact order. Following a contested hearing, the court found the allegation true. Imposition of sentence on all counts was suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years on the conditions, among others, that he serve 120 days in jail with credit for time served, pay a $650 fine including a penalty assessment and court security fee, a $610 sex crime fine, a $400 restitution fine plus an administrative fee, and a $400 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked, have no contact with the named victims, and have no contact with a minor female without supervision by a responsible adult.
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 (1979) 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. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., SIMS, J.