Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC787550
McAdams, J.
On September 18, 2008, defendant John Paul Torrez entered guilty pleas to three counts of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 (counts 1 through 3) and the rape of a different victim (count 5). (Penal Code §§ 288, subd. (a), 261, subd. (a)(2).) Pursuant to a plea and sentence agreement, a fourth count, charging a lewd and lascivious act on a 15 year old when defendant was 33 years old (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)), was to be dismissed, and defendant was promised a state prison sentence of 16 years. Defendant was advised of fines and fees, the consequences of his pleas, and his constitutional rights, which he waived. The court found a factual basis for the pleas in the police report on file.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
As part of the negotiated disposition, defendant also pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors charged in two separate cases. He was sentenced to time served.
On November 21, 2008, the court sentenced defendant to 16 years in state prison, as follows. For count 1, the court imposed the six year midterm sentence; for count 2, the court imposed a consecutive two years (one-third the midterm); for count 3, the court imposed a consecutive two years; and for count 5, the court imposed full consecutive six years (the midterm [§§ 264, 667.6, subd. (d)]). The court also imposed a sex offender registration requirement, a general restitution order, restitution and suspended parole revocation fines of $10,000; a court security fee of $80; an AIDS education fine of $70, plus a penalty assessment of $133; a sex offender fine of $300, plus a penalty assessment of $570; and a criminal justice administrative fee of $259.50. The court awarded defendant 282 days of actual and conduct credits. This timely appeal is from “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea.”
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. On January 30, 2009, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. That same day we sent a letter notifying defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. The period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. We will affirm.
Because defendant entered his pleas of guilty prior to the preliminary hearing, our factual summary is drawn from the probation officer’s report.
The two victims are defendant’s stepdaughters. The younger daughter (victim of counts 1 through 3) disclosed to her grandmother that when she was 10 years old she would sleep with her mother and defendant. Defendant would touch her private parts while pretending to be asleep. She told the police that when she was 10, she shared a room with her sister. On three occasions when her sister was not there, defendant came into the room and touched her vagina. The first time he touched her over her underwear, but the next two times he touched her skin.
The older stepdaughter, victim of count 5, disclosed to her grandmother that defendant forced himself on her Easter weekend. She told the police that when she was six or seven, defendant touched her on her upper thigh area. She also told police that on April 8, 2007, when she was 15, the defendant started touching her. She cried and told him to leave her alone. Defendant slapped her on the face, pulled her hair, began touching her breasts, took her pants off while she tried to keep them on, and finally forced sexual intercourse on her.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to People v. Wende we have reviewed the entire record on appeal. Defendant’s notice of appeal does not purport to challenge the plea itself, nor could he challenge his plea in this appeal without a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) In any event, the transcript of the plea hearing shows a properly taken plea. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain. The clerk’s transcript reflects that the court properly imposed the correct fines and fees. We conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal. (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Rushing, P.J., Duffy, J.