P. v. OConnor
Filed 4/4/07 P. v. OConnor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. ROBERT L. O'CONNOR, Defendant and Appellant. | D049581 (Super. Ct. No. SCD184666) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Affirmed.
On October 5, 2004, Robert O'Connor entered a negotiated guilty plea to oral copulation with a minor under 18 years of age. (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (b)(1).)[1] O'Connor waived his right to a jury trial on sentencing issues. (See Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.) The court sentenced him to prison for the two-year middle term and ordered him to register as a sex offender. ( 290, subd. (a)(1)(A).) O'Connor appealed and we dismissed the appeal because he had not filed a certificate of probable cause. The Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case to this court for reconsideration in light of People v. Hofsheier (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1185 (it is a denial of equal protection for a court not to exercise discretion whether to order a defendant in O'Connor's position to register as a sex offender). After the case was transferred to this court, we considered O'Connor's opening brief on appeal as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and issued the writ, remanded it, and ordered the trial court to exercise its discretion to determine whether to order O'Connor to register as a sex offender. (In re Robert Lewis O'Connor (July 12, 2006, D048887) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court reviewed the entire file, including a renewed probation report, and found O'Connor committed the crime because of sexual compulsion and for the purpose of O'Connor's sexual gratification and that he was a danger to society - particularly to minors. The court ordered O'Connor to register as a sex offender.
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. On August 5, 2004, O'Connor enticed the 16-year-old daughter of his girlfriend, in whose home he was living, to engage in sexual conduct with him. At his office that evening, at his request, she performed oral copulation on him.
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 the trial court abused its discretion in ordering O'Connor to register as a sex offender; and (2) whether the trial court denied O'Connor the right to a jury trial when it made a factual determination underlying the order he register as a sex offender.
We granted O'Connor 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 O'Connor on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.
[1] All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
