People v. Pinnick

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH DANIEL PINNICK, Defendant…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Butte

Date published: Dec 18, 2008

No. C058213 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH DANIEL PINNICK, Defendant and Appellant. C058213 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Butte December 18, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CM027284

SIMS, Acting P. J.

In June 2007, the mother of defendant Joseph Daniel Pinnick opened his bedroom door and saw her six-year-old granddaughter (defendant’s niece) standing in front of a television that was showing a pornographic video.¹ When the mother walked into the room, defendant jumped up and was “messing” with his pants. The victim told interviewers that her uncle had taken her into his bedroom and showed her “bad” movies. He placed one hand on his penis and the other on her vagina. She told him to stop but he shook his head “no.” When her grandmother entered the room, defendant fled to the bathroom.

1 Because defendant pled guilty, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report.

Defendant pled guilty to lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).)² In exchange, two related counts were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.³

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for six years, awarded 229 days’ custody credit and 34 days’ conduct credit, and ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $720 sex crime fine (§ 290.3), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The trial court ordered the clerk to separately state the components of the sex crime fine on the abstract of judgment.

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.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

We concur: DAVIS , J., HULL , J.