From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wright

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
C057605 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)

Opinion

C057605

9-29-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN RUSSELL WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published


Because defendant pleaded guilty, we summarize the statement of facts set out in the probation report.

In 2006, defendant Steven Russell Wright began taking his daughter and her friend swimming at an athletic club. The friends brother, eight-year-old R., would "tag along" with the group. After defendant and R. finished swimming, they would go to the mens locker room to shower and change clothes.

This happened about 20 times.

In May 2007, defendant and R. went to the club with R.s friend, T. When T. returned home, he disclosed to his mother that R. had touched defendant, and it was like "`milking a cow." In an interview, T. revealed that R. approached defendant and started pulling on his "`wiener," which "`grew really long." This went on for about five minutes. Defendant and R. encouraged T. to touch defendants penis in the same manner. T. briefly touched defendants penis. When T. expressed concern that he and R. were in trouble, he was reassured that neither of them had done anything wrong.

In an interview, defendant admitted having oral-genital contact with R. He admitted that on one occasion, 10-year-old M. accompanied them. In the locker room, R. performed oral copulation on M.

M. told detectives that defendant had tried to wash him, had hit him on his buttocks, and had touched his penis several times.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under age 14, involving R. and T. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); undesignated statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) In exchange, the prosecution agreed not to file a count involving M.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for eight years, awarded 128 days custody credit and 19 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 $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8). The trial court orally directed the clerk to separately state on the abstract of judgment the component parts of the sex crime fine.

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.

Our review reveals three errors on the abstract of judgment. First, defendants offenses, violations of section 288, subdivision (a), are statutorily defined as violent felonies. (§ 667.5, subd. (c)(6).) On part 1. of the abstract, the box for "consecutive 1/3 violent" should be checked and the box for "consecutive 1/3 non-violent" should not be checked.

Second, defendants conduct credits were calculated pursuant to section 2933.1, not section 4019. The abstract must be corrected to so indicate.

Third, the component parts of the sex crime fine must be listed on the abstract of judgment. "All fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.]" (People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.)

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. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to list the component parts of the sex crime fine, indicate that defendants acts are violent felonies, and indicate that his conduct credits were calculated pursuant to section 2933.1. A certified copy of the amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur:

SIMS, Acting P.J.

DAVIS, J.


Summaries of

People v. Wright

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 29, 2008
C057605 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN RUSSELL WRIGHT, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Sep 29, 2008

Citations

C057605 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 29, 2008)