Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. Nos. SCR-546322 & SCR-519139
Marchiano, P. J.
Defendant William Joseph Hauff pleaded no contest to (1) arranging a meeting with a minor for the purpose of engaging in lewd and lascivious behavior and going to the arranged meeting place (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b)); and (2) committing a lewd act on the body of a 14-year-old when he was at least 10 years older than the victim (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)). Pursuant to a plea negotiation, the trial court sentenced defendant to three years on the former charge and a consecutive eight months on the latter. The court imposed an additional consecutive eight-month term for a probation violation on a prior drug conviction; defendant had been advised this was a possible consequence of his plea.
Defendant’s counsel has filed an opening brief that raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. We find no arguable issues and affirm.
I.
The victim is a 14-year-old girl we refer to as Jane Doe.
According to the probation report, Jane Doe’s mother contacted the Santa Rosa Police Department on September 2, 2008, and reported that she believed her daughter was “inappropriately interacting” with defendant. Jane Doe had been lying about her whereabouts. Both Jane Doe’s older sister and a friend had told Jane Doe’s mother that she had been interacting with a 46-year-old man. Jane Doe’s mother found defendant’s phone number in Jane Doe’s cell phone memory. The mother called the number. Defendant answered, “Hi baby.” Jane Doe’s mother told defendant to stop seeing her daughter.
A police officer contacted defendant, who admitted having been in contact with Jane Doe for about three weeks. Defendant said he had never met Jane Doe and only learned she was 14 when her mother called him.
The police interviewed Jane Doe on September 2, 2008. She admitted meeting defendant on August 22, but claimed they only kissed and held hands. She said she did not want to get defendant into trouble. She eventually admitted that defendant had undone her pants and repeatedly tried to place his hands down them, but she stopped him. She said defendant had touched her breasts over her clothing and digitally penetrated her vagina. The penetration occurred at a hotel in Rohnert Park, where defendant took her after school.
Jane Doe’s mother discovered and provided to police copies of two sexually explicit e-mails defendant sent to Jane Doe.
On September 9, 2008, the police interviewed Jane Doe again. She went into more detail about the sexual hotel encounter, which she said had occurred in late August. She identified defendant from a photographic lineup. She told police that she received sexually explicit text messages from defendant after the encounter, and that she and defendant had exchanged photographs of their genitalia.
Jane Doe also told police that she had informed defendant she was 14 “early on during their transactions.”
Jane Doe’s cell phone bill showed numerous calls between her and defendant between August 22 and September 10, 2008. Jane Doe’s phone number was found in defendant’s cell phone memory under the name “Scott.”
On September 22, 2008, after being advised of his Miranda rights, defendant admitted sending sexual e-mails to Jane Doe and exchanging genital pictures via cell phone. He admitted picking Jane Doe up after school and taking her to a Rohnert Park hotel, but claimed they only watched TV from separate beds. He initially lied about ever meeting Jane Doe, and claimed he never touched her in any manner.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
Defendant was initially charged with five felonies, a misdemeanor, and a prior prison conviction. He was permitted to plead no contest to two felonies in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and the prior prison conviction allegation.
II.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. Defendant was represented by counsel at all pertinent portions of the proceedings. He was fully advised of his constitutional rights when he entered his no contest plea. His sentence was consistent with his plea bargain. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the consecutive term for the probation violation. Defendant received the custody credit to which he was entitled. There are no errors in the proceedings.
III.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Margulies, J., Graham, J.
Retired judge of the Superior Court of Marin County assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.