Filed 12/17/18 P. v. Houghton CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Knish, Judge. Dismissed.

Kenneth J. Vandevelde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Thomas Glenn Houghton pled guilty to five felonies after committing lewd acts on a 14-year-old girl. The court imposed but stayed a six-year sentence on the condition that defendant serve 365 days in jail and comply with probation conditions. We dismiss the appeal at defendant’s request.

Facts and Procedure

Jane Doe attended a horse camp at a local barn the summer she was 12 years old, at which she learned to ride and care for horses. Jane became part of the community at the barn and continued to participate in its activities. The barn closed about one year later. A few months before these crimes took place, when Jane was 14 years old, a former member of the barn community who had mentored Jane moved back to the area. Jane reconnected with this mentor and began to spend time with her at a ranch where the mentor kept her horses, helping in the barn, cleaning out stalls, and feeding the horses. Jane got to know the ranch owner and her live-in boyfriend, the 35-year-old defendant, while helping at the ranch. Defendant and Jane worked side by side cleaning out stalls.

Defendant groomed Jane by cuddling with her, giving her hugs and communicating with her on social media. One day in December 2016, defendant and Jane arranged for Jane to come to the ranch on a day the mentor friend could not go. They discussed cuddling, watching television, drinking alcohol, and whether they were going to do “anything else.” When Jane arrived, defendant gave Jane two or three shots of vodka. This made Jane feel “fuzzy.” They went up to defendant’s bedroom and lay on his bed to cuddle. Defendant touched Jane inappropriately in several different ways. During this time, defendant gave Jane one or two more shots of vodka. Defendant told Jane he may have given her too much alcohol.

A few days later, Jane felt guilty and told her mother, who called the police. The police interviewed Jane twice. During his own police interview, defendant admitted to having touched Jane inappropriately, but not to the extent Jane described.

On December 8, 2017, defendant pled no contest to three counts of lewd acts on a child age 14 or 15 (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)),[1] one count of oral copulation on a child under age 16 (§ 288a, subd. (b)(2)), and one count of arranging a meeting with a minor with a sexual interest (§ 288.4, subd. (b)).

On June 6, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant as agreed to a suspended sentence of six years in prison, on the condition he spend 365 days in local custody, complete four years of felony probation, and comply with the conditions of probation.

Defendant appealed. His notice of appeal specified that he challenged the probation condition that he “[n]either use nor possess any computer or internet device except in the course of employment with the employer’s knowledge of the nature of the offense and with the prior approval of the probation officer.”

Discussion

Upon defendant’s request, this court appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record.

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

On December 12, 2018, after the opinion in this matter was prepared, defendant filed a request for dismissal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed at defendant’s request.

Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON

J.

RAPHAEL

J.