Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 62072934
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Defendant Dionysios Yuri Shallan, Jr., a high school coach, had a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old female athlete. The relationship lasted until she was 17 years old, and involved oral copulation, digital penetration, and sexual intercourse; when engaged in certain acts with the victim, defendant watched pornography on his computer. While defendant was a coach at a different school, he engaged in oral copulation and digital penetration with a 16-year-old female athlete; at another trial, defendant lied under oath when he denied this sexual relationship.
Defendant pled no contest to sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (h); count 2), unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c); count 27), perjury (Pen. Code, § 118; count 28), two counts of oral copulation of a person under the age of 18 years (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1); counts 1 and 15), two counts of oral copulation of a person under the age of 16 years (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2); counts 6 and 13), and two counts of a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1); counts 7 and 8), and he admitted using obscene matter (Pen. Code, § 1203.066, subd. (a)(9)) in connection with count 8. The negotiated pleas including a stipulation that he would be sentenced to state prison for three years and eight months, and the remaining count in this case and in another case (No. 62-56294) would be dismissed with a Harvey waiver. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.) Defendant received the upper term of three years on count 1, a consecutive term of eight months term (one-third the midterm)) on count 6, and concurrent terms on the other counts.
Defendant appeals. His request for a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5) was denied.
We appointed counsel to represent 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.) 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.