Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. VCF192443, James W. Hollman, Judge.
Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Dawson, Acting P.J., Hill, J., and Kane, J.
Salvador Garcia Fernandez’s niece and her family lived with Fernandez and his family from August 1, 2005, through October 8, 2005. During that time, Fernandez began sexually assaulting I.G. The assaults usually began with Fernandez pulling I.G. into his bedroom while other people at the house were outside or occupied. During these incidents, Fernandez would touch I.G. under her clothes in the vaginal area with his hand or penis. Fernandez would also have I.G. touch his penis and attempted to have her orally copulate him. After I.G.’s family moved out of the Fernandez house, the molestations continued to occur on some occasions when I.G.’s family visited Fernandez’s family. I.G.’s brother testified at trial that he saw Fernandez pull I.G. into Fernandez’s bedroom on one occasion. On another occasion, I.G.’s brother was lying on the floor watching television in Fernandez’s bedroom with other children. When the other children left the room, Fernandez pulled I.G. onto the bed. At one point, I.G.’s brother turned around and saw Fernandez touching I.G. in the vaginal area. The last molestation occurred a week prior to I.G. reporting the incidents to her mother in August 2007. Fernandez was first arrested in this matter on August 27, 2007.
On April 30, 2008, the district attorney filed an information charging Fernandez with four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. Each count also alleged that Fernandez had substantial sexual contact with the victim. (Pen. Code, § 1203.066.)
On October 30, 2008, a jury found Fernandez guilty on all counts and found all the special allegations true.
On December 23, 2008, the court sentenced Fernandez to an aggregate 14-year term, the aggravated term of eight years on count 1 and consecutive two-year terms (one-third the middle term of six years) on each remaining count.
Fernandez's appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) However, in a letter filed on June 10, 2009, Fernandez raises a myriad of factual issues in an attempt to discredit the victim's statements and testimony. We interpret Fernandez's contentions as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
During the trial the victim testified regarding the sexual assaults by Fernandez and the prosecutor introduced a videotape interview of the victim during which she also described the assaults
“ ‘ “In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the question we ask is ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” [Citation.] We apply an identical standard under the California Constitution. [Citation.] ‘In determining whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the appellate court “must view the evidence in a light most favorable to respondent and presume in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.’ ” [Citation.] The same standard also applies in cases in which the prosecution relies primarily on circumstantial evidence. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]
“We therefore review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the challenged convictions are supported by substantial evidence, meaning ‘evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value.’ [Citation.] In contrast, ‘mere speculation cannot support a conviction. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] ‘In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Mejia (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 86, 93.)
Here, the victim and her brother testified about the molestations. Moreover, since their testimony was neither physically impossible nor patently false, we reject Fernandez's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Further, following independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist. However, our review of the record discloses that Fernandez's abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the court imposed consecutive terms of only eight months on each subordinate count and we will direct the court to correct this error.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment that shows that the trial court imposed consecutive two-year terms on counts 2 through 4 and to forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
.