Opinion
D059385
12-23-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL E. TWIGG, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. SCD230445)
APPEAL from a judgment and an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.
This appeal is taken from a judgment and order of the superior court based on Michael E. Twigg's guilty plea to two counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 and proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no reasonably arguable appellate issue, we affirm the judgment and order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2010, Twigg's stepdaughters, M. and Ma., reported having been molested by him in 2008 and approximately 2004, respectively, when each was 11 years old. In a prerecorded phone call, Twigg admitted having molested M., saying that he had been "horny" and "that's what guys do," but denied having molested Ma. Over the objection of M. and Ma.'s mother, Twigg was arrested and charged with three lewd act counts arising out of the incident involving M.; he later agreed to plead guilty to the two counts alleging touching of his penis upon M., and oral copulation on her, in exchange for a dismissal of the remaining charge, which alleged digital penetration, and an eight-year lid on his sentence.
At the change of plea hearing, Twigg represented that he was not under the influence of any alcohol, drugs or medicine, and that, with the assistance of counsel, he had read and understood the terms of his plea. He was advised of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial by jury, to remain silent, to present evidence in his defense and to confront the witnesses against him and agreed to waive those rights and enter the plea. He was also advised of the penal consequences of his plea, including that (1) the maximum sentence for the charged offense was 10 years, plus seven years of parole, (2) he would be required to pay a fine of up to $10,000, (3) he would be subject to deportation if he was not a United States citizen, (4) he might have any existing probation or parole revoked, (5) he would have two strikes on his record, which might greatly enhance the punishment for any future offense and (6) he would be required to register as a sex offender for life. Finally, Twigg, with the agreement of his counsel, stipulated that he had committed two lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 as the factual basis for the offense. The court accepted the plea and dismissed the remaining charge.
At the sentencing hearing, the court considered numerous letters submitted in Twigg's support, a psychological evaluation conducted at his request and the probation report. Based on his statements to the probation officer, the court concluded that Twigg had completely minimized his behavior and selected a mid-term sentence of six years for each of the counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. The court ordered Twigg to pay various fees and fines, including a $1,000 restitution fine, a $1,000 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended unless parole was later revoked), an $80 court security fee, a $154 criminal justice administration fee, a $60 criminal conviction assessment and a $300 sex registration fee. The court also issued a restraining order requiring Twigg to stay away from his stepdaughters. Twigg appeals.
Twigg's appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating that he has been unable to identify any argument for reversal and instead asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende; we invited Twigg to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not respond. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel's brief identifies the following issue as possible, but not arguable, on appeal:
1. Can it be proven that Twigg's counsel was ineffective and can that issue be raised on appeal?
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende and Anders and not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Twigg has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and order are affirmed.
_________________________
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
_________________________
IRION, J.