Opinion
E042843
4-18-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAMONT FOWLER, Defendant and Appellant.
David K. Rankin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 15, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code section 859a, defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to one count of a lewd act with a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), as charged in the complaint as amended by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
Thereafter, two reports were prepared by mental health professionals as to the mental health of defendant, pursuant to Penal Code section 288.1. The trial court considered those reports at a sentencing hearing held on April 6, 2007. The trial court also heard and considered the testimony of Dr. Richard Hall relative to his report and evaluation, as well as the results of his interview with defendant. After considering all of the evidence and argument of counsel, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to three years in state prison, less custody credits.
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging the sentence on April 12, 2007.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The parties stipulated to a factual basis. According to the 10-page probation report filed April 6, 2007, defendants stepdaughter had been sexually molested on several occasions since she was five years old. The sexual abuse included oral copulation and digital vaginal penetration.
DISCUSSION
Defendant 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, 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, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST, J.
GAUT, J.