Opinion
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Super. Ct. No. 04F04334
SIMS , Acting P.J.In October 2000, defendant Robert Martinez partially inserted his penis into 13-year-old Rebecca F.’s vagina. He molested her again sometime during the three months that followed. Defendant also fondled 11-year-old Jessica F.’s vagina sometime between October 2000 and October 2001.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts one, two) and one count of sexual battery (as reasonably related to that charged) (Pen. Code, 243.4; count four) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining count, a stipulated state prison sentence of six years, that is, the low term of three years on count one, a consecutive one-third the midterm or two years on count two, a consecutive one-third the midterm or one year on count four, and concurrent sentencing on two other cases. The court sentenced defendant accordingly.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was granted.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
We note that the abstract of judgment and minute order need to be corrected. The trial court reserved jurisdiction over the amount of restitution owed to the minor victims. The abstract of judgment as well as the minute order reflect this order but both documents include both the first and last names of the victims. In order to protect the privacy of the minor victims, only the minor victims’ first names (Rebecca and Jessica) and last initial (F.) should appear.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to remove the current abstract of judgment from the record and to prepare a new abstract of judgment reflecting the minors’ first names and last initial only. The trial court is directed to redact the last names of the minor victims from the minute order and replace with the last initial. The trial court is directed to forward a certified copy of the new abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
HULL , J., BUTZ , J.