P. v. Lyon
Filed 3/29/06 P. v. Lyon CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. THOMAS CLARK LYON, Defendant and Appellant. |
F048417
(Super. Ct. No. F04907951-8)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary Orozco, Judge.
David R. Mugridge for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Kelly E. Lebel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Thomas Clark Lyon, was convicted on his guilty plea to one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14. (Pen. Code,[1] § 288.5.) Between October 2003 and December 2003 appellant repeatedly molested his 11-year-old stepdaughter. As part of appellant's plea, three counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts against a child and three counts of oral copulation of a child were dismissed. (§§ 288, subd. (a) and 288a, subd. (c).) These dismissed counts were alleged to have taken place between January 16, 2004, and May 31, 2004.
The trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to the low term of six years in state prison. Appellant challenges the denial of probation. According to appellant, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give due consideration to the statutory criteria and not using proper criteria in reaching its decision.
As discussed below, appellant has not demonstrated that the court's decision was arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the judgment will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Appellant married the victim's mother, Laura, in 1996. At that time the victim was five years old.
The family lived together in San Jose until 2003. Appellant took a job in Clovis and he and the victim moved to Clovis in July. Laura was still working in San Jose and saw appellant and the victim on weekends.
In October 2003, appellant began touching the victim, his then 11-year-old stepdaughter, â€
