Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF129569 Arjuna T. Saraydarian, Judge. (Retired judge of the Riverside Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI, Acting P.J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Gonzalo Baltazar Garcia pled guilty to 25 counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 between January 2004 and April 2006 in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). Under the plea agreement, defendant’s maximum and minimum sentence was set at 30 and 15 years, respectively. Defendant was sentenced to the maximum term of 30 years in state prison.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
The factual background is taken from the probation officer’s report.
Between January 2004 and April 2006, defendant had been molesting a friend’s son, beginning when the victim was nine years old. Defendant claimed the victim had initiated the multiple sexual abuse incidents, which involved sodomy, oral copulation, kissing, and touching. Defendant further described the victim as “promiscuous.”
On April 3, 2008, after acknowledging, understanding, and waiving his constitutional rights, defendant pled guilty to 25 counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14.
On June 17, 2008, following a sentencing hearing, at which the court found the offenses to be egregious, defendant was sentenced to the maximum agreed-upon term of 30 years in state prison.
II 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 the 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.
III DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: KING J., MILLER J.