Filed 7/11/17 P. v. Giden 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LARENZO JAMAR GIDEN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C083361

(Super. Ct. No. CM043187)







Appointed counsel for defendant Larenzo Jamar Giden has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
Defendant and the victim’s mother dated for a couple of years. They separated in early 2015, but remained friends. In May 2015, mother gave defendant permission to spend the night at her home. The victim woke up and asked defendant, who was like a father to her, to lay down with her while she fell asleep. She woke up and defendant was touching her breasts, then he digitally penetrated her. She slapped his hand away and told him he was hurting her. He told her he loved her. A neighbor then came to the door and reported mother’s car had been broken into. After defendant checked on the car, he got into bed with the victim and her mother. The victim immediately got out of bed. She reported the assault to mother the next day.
An information charged defendant with two counts of committing a lewd act upon a child. (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a).) Defendant pleaded no contest to one count, and the remaining count was dismissed with a Harvey waiver. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation. The trial court ordered him to pay mandatory fines and fees. The terms and conditions of probation required defendant to participate in sex offender therapy, refrain from using alcohol and submit to testing, complete a residential substance abuse treatment program, and to stay away from the victim.
In August 2016, defendant admitted he had violated probation. Among other violations, he had been terminated from sex offender therapy and had not submitted a urine sample for testing. The trial court terminated probation and imposed the middle term of six years in state prison and awarded defendant 254 days of presentence custody credit. The trial court lifted the stay on the $300 probation revocation fine and imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



NICHOLSON , J.



We concur:



RAYE , P. J.




HOCH , J.