Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 05-7893
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Following the filing of a January 2006 complaint alleging that defendant Hilberto Osorio was a cohabitant who committed ongoing child molestation between 2003 and 2004, the court repeatedly continued the matter while the defendant remained free on bail. In October 2007, the prosecutor filed an amended complaint alleging 21 individual counts of child molestation between 2003 and 2004, along with sentencing enhancements.
After the February 2008 preliminary hearing, the magistrate held the defendant to answer on all counts and enhancements. It based its ruling on the videotaped November 2006 interview with the primary victim (born in 1993), who detailed five incidents with the defendant and referred generally to 20-30 others (as well as a single incident of molestation involving her younger sister), and the defendant’s admission in a police interview that he had a sexual encounter with the primary victim (although claiming his participation was the result of coercion from the primary victim).
The prosecutor filed an information reiterating the charges from the amended complaint (now making clear that count 21 involved the younger sister). At the arraignment, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The court set the matter for trial in April 2008 and remanded the defendant into custody for the first time.
After the court vacated the trial date to allow further defense investigation and held a hearing on discovery matters, the defendant announced his willingness at the trial-readiness conference to enter into a plea agreement. In exchange for his plea of no contest to seven of the counts, the court would impose an upper base term of eight years and six consecutive terms of two years each for a total stipulated term of 20 years, dismissing the remaining counts and all the sentencing enhancements. The prosecutor specified the factual basis was contained in the various police reports and the transcript of the preliminary hearing. After the court reviewed the defendant’s written waiver of rights, it found that he had made a knowing and intelligent waiver of them and accepted his plea. At the defendant’s request, it sentenced him immediately to the agreed prison term without a probation report, imposed the minimum restitution fine and parole revocation fine, and ordered AIDS and DNA testing. The court stated that it would address custody credits at a later date after the receipt of a post-sentencing probation report, as well as any other mandatory fines.
The prosecution moved to admit evidence of abuse-accommodation syndrome and the defense filed a motion to suppress evidence of his statements, but the record does not indicate any ruling on them.
The defendant filed a notice of appeal that did not request a certificate of probable cause. The trial court subsequently entered an order granting 110 days of actual local custody and 16 days of custody credits (Pen. Code, § 2900.1), and (in response to a January 2009 letter from the defendant’s appellate counsel) issued an amended abstract of decision in January 2009 reflecting the award of credits (which this court finally received in March 2009).
We have appointed counsel to represent the defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised the defendant of his 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 have not received any communication from the defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we do not find any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: SIMS, J. NICHOLSON, J.