Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara, No. 1345743, Jed Beebe, Judge.
Richard C. Gilman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
PERREN, J.
Juan Novoa Nunez appeals the judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to three counts of committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)). In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years state prison. The court also dismissed three additional counts of forcible lewd act upon a child younger than 14, three counts of forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)), three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 14 (§ 269, subd. (a)(4)), and one count of committing a lewd act upon a child at least 10 years younger than the perpetrator (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)). Various sentencing enhancement allegations were also dismissed.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Because appellant pleaded no contest prior to trial, the relevant facts are derived from the transcript of the preliminary hearing. In 2009, two of appellant’s granddaughters reported that he had sexually molested them over the course of several years. When the preliminary hearing was held in April 2010, Jane Doe 1 was 16 years old and Jane Doe 2 was 20 years old. Jane Doe 1 testified that appellant first began touching her in a sexual manner when she was only 5 years old and began touching her breasts and genitals when she was 7 or 8 years old. Appellant’s contact with Jane Doe 1 included manual penetration of her genitals. Appellant began sexually molesting Jane Doe 2 when she was 10 years old, and continued abusing her several times a month until she was 13 years old. Appellant’s abuse of Jane Doe 2 included oral-genital contact. After appellant was arrested, he admitted that he had engaged in conduct with Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 that included sexual touching and oral-genital contact.
Approximately three months after appellant entered his no contest plea, he retained new counsel and moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was not fully advised of its adverse consequences. The motion was denied. Appellant thereafter filed a notice of appeal. The court granted his request for a certificate of probable cause.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel’s examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised.
On March 17, 2011, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. Appellant did not respond.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, Acting P.J., COFFEE, J.