P.v . Orozco

Filed 2/7/07  P.v . Orozco CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

            APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  Michelle R. Rosenblatt, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________

            Marcos Omar Orozco appeals his conviction for lewd acts with a child (Pen.  Code, § 288, subd. (a) (§ 288(a)).  His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), raising no issues.  Appellant was notified that he could file his own brief.  He has not done so.

            Appellant was charged with three counts of violating section 288(a), with three enhancements for committing great bodily injury.  The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that the 12-year-old victim told appellant she was 16 years old.  On three different nights, she voluntarily came outside through her bedroom window, they had consensual sex, and he paid her.  She became pregnant, and had an abortion.

            Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pled no contest to two counts of violating section 288(a).  He was sentenced concurrently to the midterm of six years in prison, with 389 days of total custody credits.  The remaining charges were dismissed.

            In People v. Cross (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 500, review granted March 1, 2006, S139791, our Supreme Court will decide whether a victim's pregnancy or subsequent abortion constitutes great bodily injury, for the purpose of the enhancement of Penal Code section 12022.7.  The issue is not present in this case because the great bodily injury allegations were dismissed.

            Appellate counsel filed a motion to correct custody credits in the trial court.  We have been informed that the motion was granted.

            After review of the entire record on appeal, we are satisfied that appellant's attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities, and no arguable issues exist.  (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                                    FLIER, J.

We concur:

                        COOPER, P. J.

                        BOLAND, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.