P. v. Nichols
Filed 8/15/07 P. v. Nichols CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN MANUEL NICHOLS, Defendant and Appellant. | E041884 (Super.Ct.No. FVI022667) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Jules E. Fleuret, Judge. Affirmed.
Gerald P. Peters, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On February 23, 2006, pursuant to Penal Code sections 859a and 1192.7,[1]defendant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to a violation of section 288.5(a), continuous sexual abuse which occurred from August 1998 through August 2000. That count also alleged a section 1203.066(b) charge of three or more sexual acts with the victim under the age of 14 years pursuant to section 288, as charged in the felony complaint filed by the District Attorney of San Bernardino County.
Thereafter, on November 16, 2006, defendant was committed to state prison for six years less custody credits.
Statement of Facts[2]
On October 9, 2005, defendants wife told a San Bernardino Deputy Sheriff that their 16-year-old daughter informed her that defendant Nichols had molested her when she was nine years old.
A deputy interviewed defendant, who was upset and crying at that time. Defendant stated that an incident occurred when their daughter was approximately nine years old. Defendant stated he had been drinking alcohol and the daughter woke up and came out to the living room where he was sitting and sat in his lap. They began hugging and talking and they went to the bathroom and defendant masturbated. Defendant stated his daughter then orally copulated him before he ejaculated. Defendant could not remember if there were other incidents like this at that time and wrote an apology letter two years later.
In a second interview with a deputy, defendant stated that there was only one incident with his daughter, which had happened several years earlier. Defendant stated he was drunk and out of his mind when that incident occurred and defendant denied that incident occurred. Defendant denied that the incident happened as his daughter described.
The victim, however, told a deputy that the first incident occurred when she was eight or nine years old. Defendant woke her, took her to the bathroom, and told her to orally copulate him. Defendant told her that she could not leave until she finished. Defendant then ejaculated into the toilet and told her, I want to show you what you needed to expect from guys in the future. Defendant made his daughter look at the sperm in the toilet, then told her to copulate him. She copulated him for 10 to 15 minutes.
The victim stated that in another incident, defendant took her to his bedroom and told her to orally copulate him, which she did, but defendant did not ejaculate.
The victim stated that another incident occurred when she was 11 years old. Defendant woke her, pulled her pants down, and placed his tongue on her vagina. The victim recalled other incidents in which defendant molested her.
Defendants niece told a deputy that, when she was approximately five years old, defendant also came into her bedroom. She pretended to be asleep. Defendant pulled his pants down and exposed his penis. He tried to wake her, but, when he couldnt, he left the room. The niece said that defendant talked dirty to her, saying such things as, Do you want to suck my dick? and I want to touch you.
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493] setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have now concluded our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
HOLLENHORST
J.
GAUT
J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.
[2] The Statement of Facts is derived from the eight-page San Bernardino County Probation Department report dated April 19, 2006.
