Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. No. F08906126 Robert H. Oliver, Judge.
Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment imposed after defendant pleaded no contest to three felony counts. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Counsel for defendant Elith Cortes Martinez has filed a brief in this appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel summarized the record, stated that defendant had been notified by counsel of his right to raise any issues through supplemental briefing that defendant might wish to file in this court, and requested that this court independently review the record to determine whether there are arguable issues on appeal. We have done so. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
On August 28, 2008, defendant penetrated the vagina of his six-year-old victim with his finger and his penis, then he sodomized her. The victim told her mother, who took the victim to the hospital; people at the hospital then contacted the police. A subsequent forensic examination showed the presence of semen on the victim’s underpants.
Defendant was charged in an amended information with count 1, sexual intercourse with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)), count 2, sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)), and count 3, sodomy of a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)). On the second day of trial, defendant agreed to plead no contest to all three counts of the amended information in return for an indicated sentence of concurrent terms on the three counts.
Before the sentencing hearing, defendant terminated the services of his retained counsel; the office of the public defender was appointed to represent him. Thereafter, defendant moved to withdraw his no contest pleas on the basis he entered into the plea agreement due to pressure from his attorney. Defendant testified that the prosecutor told him he (the prosecutor) was “99 percent sure of winning the trial” and that defense counsel told him she would not make any mistakes at trial, so defendant would not be able to appeal. The trial court rejected the characterization of this testimony as disclosing a threat from defense counsel to impede any appeal by the defendant if he took the case to trial, instead, merely constituting advice concerning the potential consequences of a trial. The court denied the motion to withdraw the pleas.
The court sentenced defendant to prison for a term of 25 years to life on count 1, the statutorily prescribed penalty. (See Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a).) The court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of imprisonment for 15 years to life on count 2 and 25 years to life on count 3.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. In his request for a certificate of probable cause (see Pen. Code, § 1237.5), defendant renewed his claim that his attorney had threatened to undermine his appeal if he did not accept the plea agreement.
On August 30, 2010, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief, as described above, raising no issues. The court, on the same date, notified defendant by mail of his right to submit to the court within 30 days any issues he wished to raise on the appeal. By letter filed October 6, 2010, defendant requested an extension of 60 days to file a response with the court. He also requested appointment of Spanish-speaking counsel. The court granted the extension of time for defendant to file a letter raising any issues, but denied the request for appointment of an attorney who speaks Spanish. The order stated: “Appellant has not shown that, with this additional time, he will be unable to obtain assistance of a Spanish speaking individual to help him submit a Wende letter.” The 60-day extension of time has now expired; defendant has not submitted a letter raising any issues concerning the appeal.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal. That review has disclosed the existence of no arguably meritorious legal or factual issues in this case. (People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.