P. v. Bernal
Filed 5/20/13 P. v. Bernal CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(San
Joaquin)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DAVID RAMOS BERNAL,
Defendant and Appellant.
C072782
(Super. Ct. No.
LF012498A)
Appointed
counsel for defendant David Ramos Bernal has asked this court to review the
record to determine whether there exist any arguable
issues on appeal. (
436 (Wende).) We shall affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2012, the People filed an
amended information charging defendant with 10 counts of lewd and lascivious
acts on a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code,
§ 288, subd. (a)). It was alleged
as to all counts that defendant committed the offense against more than one
victim (§ 667.61, subd. (e)(5)), that he had a prior conviction for a
sexual offense (§ 667.71), that he had been convicted of a serious felony
(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a strike (§ 1170.12, subd. (b)), and that
he was ineligible for probation because he had been convicted of violating
section 288, subdivision (a), involving more than one victim (§ 1203.066,
subds. (a)(5), (a)(7)).
On September 25, 2012, the People
amended the information to charge continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14
years of age (§ 288.5, subd. (a)) as count 4. Defendant thereafter pled guilty to counts 4
and 9 and admitted the prior strike and the prior serious felony conviction, on
the understanding that the remaining counts and allegations would be dismissed
and he would receive a stipulated state
prison term of 29 years.
The trial
court recited the factual basis for the plea as follows: Defendant continuously abused victim N.D.
(born in August 1997) sexually on or about the years 2001 through 2003. He committed a lewd act upon victim V.D.
(born in December 1999) on or about the years 2006 through 2011. On or about April 16, 1991, in San Joaquin County Superior Court, he
pled guilty to violating section 288, subdivision (a).
On November 5, 2012, the trial court
imposed the stipulated 29-year prison term, consisting of 12 years on count 4,
doubled to 24 years for the strike, plus five years for the prior serious
felony. The court ran the sentence on
count 9 (three years, doubled to six years for the strike) concurrent to count
4. The court awarded 699 days of
presentence custody credit (608 days of actual credit and 91 days of conduct
credit). The court imposed a $240
restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $240 suspended parole
revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), an $80 court security fee
(§ 1465.8), and a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373).
DISCUSSION
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. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)
Counsel advised defendant of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the filing date of the
opening brief. More than 30 days have
elapsed, and we have 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.
DUARTE , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
MAURO , J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Further undesignated statutory references are
to the Penal Code.
