From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Vielman

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Mar 24, 2008
No. B199388 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN L. VIELMAN, Defendant and Appellant. B199388 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Fourth Division March 24, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA124061, Jacqueline A. Connor and Kathleen Kennedy-Powell, Judges.

Patrick Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MANELLA, J.

Juan L. Vielman appeals from an order after judgment denying his motion for modification of sentence. Previously, he was convicted of committing lewd acts on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 1-21) against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b), and (e); counts 1-5, 11-13, 16-20); exhibiting harmful matter to a child (§ 288.2; counts 22-24); and misdemeanor indecent exposure (§ 314, subd. (1); count 25). He was sentenced to 203 years to life and ordered to pay a $5,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (a)). He thereafter appealed the judgment and on July 7, 2000, this court issued an opinion affirming the judgment and ordering the abstract of judgment be corrected to reflect the $5,000 restitution fine.

All further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

On April 24, 2007, appellant filed a request for modification of the restitution fine, claiming the trial court was required but failed to consider his ability to pay the fine.

On May 4, 2007, the motion was denied.

After review of the record, appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.

On November 27, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. No response has been received to date.

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist and that appellant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J., SUZUKAWA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Vielman

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division
Mar 24, 2008
No. B199388 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Vielman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN L. VIELMAN, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Fourth Division

Date published: Mar 24, 2008

Citations

No. B199388 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2008)