Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF113575. Bernard Schwartz, Judge.
Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P.J.
Defendant and Appellant David Brian Gurwell (defendant) is serving a sentence of 30 years to life plus 18 years. The trial court resentenced defendant on April 13, 2007, in accordance with an opinion by this court in appeal number E037822 and after the People elected not to retry defendant.
Defendant molested the victim, who was 10 years old at the time of trial, beginning when she was five years old and continuing until she was eight or nine years old. A jury convicted defendant of nine counts of aggravated sexual assault on a child under the age of 14 and 10 or more years younger than defendant, in violation of Penal Code section 269, subdivision (a). Section 269, subdivision (a), makes it a crime to commit specified sex acts by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on a victim under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the perpetrator. The specified sex act for counts 1 and 2 is forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)); for counts 3 and 4, sexual penetration (§ 289, subd (a)); for counts 5 and 6, sodomy (§ 286); and for counts 7, 8 and 9, oral copulation. (§ 288a.) The trial court sentenced defendant to nine consecutive sentences of 15 years to life, for a total sentence of 135 years to life.
The facts in this paragraph are taken from this court’s opinion in appeal number E037822.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
In his appeal of that conviction, defendant argued that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on the underlying, specified sex crimes as lesser necessarily included offenses to the charged violations of section 269. In an opinion in appeal number E037822, this court agreed that the trial court erred as to counts 3 through 9, and remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to resentence defendant if the People chose not to retry defendant on those counts. The People declined a retrial. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life on counts 1 and 2, plus six years on count 3 and two years each on counts 4 through 9, all to run consecutively. This appeal followed.
Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and requesting this court undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER, J., KING, J.