P. v. House
Filed 7/2/07 P. v. House CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUETENANT HOUSE, Defendant and Appellant. | D049762 (Super. Ct. No. SCD194656) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frank A. Brown, Judge. Affirmed.
Luetenant House entered negotiated guilty pleas to forcible rape (Pen. Code, 261, subd. (a)(2)),[1]lewd acts upon a minor under the age of 14 years ( 288, subd. (a)), rape with a foreign object ( 289, subd. (a)(1)), and incest ( 285). The court sentenced him to a stipulated 20 years in prison: the six-year middle term for forcible rape with a
consecutive full term eight-year upper term for committing lewd acts with a minor under the age of 14 years and a consecutive full term six-year middle term for rape with a foreign object. It imposed a concurrent term for incest. The record does not include a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576), the following occurred. House began forcibly sexually molesting his daughter when she was 12 years old. The forcible molestation included sexual intercourse, digital penetration and oral copulation, and the molestation continued for several years until the victim ran away from home. Because House entered guilty pleas, he cannot challenge the facts underlying the convictions. (Pen. Code, 1237.5; People v. Martin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 687, 693.) We need not recite the facts in greater detail.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth the evidence in the superior court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as possible but not arguable issues: (1) whether House is entitled to a certificate of probable cause; (2) whether House's guilty pleas were voluntary and intelligent; (3) whether House was properly advised of the charges; and (4) whether the trial court erred in denying House's request for treatment at Atascadero Hospital.
We granted House permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. A review of the entire record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, including the possible issues referred to pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent counsel has represented House on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney directory.
Analysis and review provided by Oceanside Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
