Opinion
F062400 Super. Ct. No. F10906515
12-19-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FERNANDO ABEL HINOJOSA, Defendant and Appellant.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
OPINION
THE COURT
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Don Penner, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Fernando Abel Hinojosa, appeals from a judgment entered after he pled no contest to failing to register as a sexual offender (Pen. Code, § 290.012, subd. (a) ) and he admitted that he had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). Following independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441, we affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
--------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 24, 2010, Fresno Police officers, responding to a report of copper wire theft, contacted Hinojosa because he matched the description of the suspected thief. Hinojosa questioned the identity of the officer saying anyone could buy a police uniform and refused to obey orders to get on the ground. After he was taken into custody, the officers discovered that Hinojosa had a 1988 conviction for sexual battery (§ 243.4), which required him to register as a sex offender monthly because he was a transient (§ 290.012, subd. (c)) and annually within five working days of his birthday on December 5th (§ 290.012, subd. (a)). The officers also determined that Hinojosa was in violation of both registration requirements because he had last registered on August 19, 2010.
On January 4, 2011, the district attorney filed a complaint charging Hinojosa with one count each of failing to register annually (count 1/§ 290.012, subd. (a)) and failing to register every 30 days (count 2/§ 290.012, subd. (c)). The complaint also alleged that Hinojosa had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law.
On February 22, 2011, Hinojosa pled no contest to failing to register annually in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining count and an unrelated misdemeanor case.
On March 22, 2011, the court denied the defense's motion to strike the prior strike allegations and sentenced Hinojosa to a 32-month term, the mitigated term of 16 months, doubled to 32 months because of Hinojosa's prior strike conviction.
Hinojosa'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, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Hinojosa has not responded to this court's invitation to submit additional briefing.
Following an independent review of the record we find that no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.