Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Ventura No. 2011011455 Charles W. Campbell, Judge.
Richard C. Gilman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
No appearance for Respondent.
YEGAN, J.
Ahmad Saboor Mansouri appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of luring a minor to commit a sex offense (Pen. Code, § 288.3, subd. (a)) and furnishing marijuana to a minor (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to four years state prison and ordered appellant to pay a $480 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $480 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $300 fine (§ 290.3), a $80 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Appellant was ordered to register for life as a sex offender (§ 290) and a narcotics offender (Health & Saf. Code, § 11590).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On September 5, 2012, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider.
On October 4, 2012, we received a letter from appellant stating, among other things, that the trial court erred in ordering him to register as a sex offender which could result in his deportation.
The evidence shows that appellant furnished the 15-year-old victim (Andy) marijuana and told Andy that he wanted to watch him take a shower and perform lewd acts on him. In police-monitored phone calls, appellant said that he wanted to perform lewd acts on Andy. Section 290, subdivision (c) requires that a person convicted of a violation of section 288.3 register as a sex offender while residing in California. (People v. Jeha (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1071-1072, fn. 2.) There was no sentencing error. (Id., at pp. 1073-1074.)
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's appointed counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GILBERT, P.J., PERREN, J.