P. v. Pearson
Filed 9/9/08 P. v. Pearson CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENYATTA PEARSON, Defendant and Appellant. | A121772 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C154575) |
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant Kenyatta Pearson entered a no contest plea to six counts of committing a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a)) and admitted two state prison priors (see Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)). The negotiated sentence was 20 years in state prison and the other counts were dismissed. Appellant received the agreed-upon sentence. The evidence presented at the preliminary hearing established that appellant engaged in sexual acts with girls under the age of 14.
Counsel for appellant has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking the court for an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have conducted the requested review and concluded that there are no arguable issues.
Appellant was represented throughout the proceedings by counsel. His no contest plea and admission of the state prison priors were validly entered. He received the agreed-upon sentence, consisting of the aggravated term of eight years on count 4, consecutive terms of two years on the remaining five counts, and one year each for the two state prison priors.[1] There were no sentencing errors.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Reardon, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Ruvolo, P. J.
_________________________
Rivera, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1]With respect to the aggravated term, appellant executed an Apprendi-Blakely waiver form. (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466; Blakelyv. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296.)
