legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. RennardP. v. Rennard

P. v. RennardP. v. Rennard
10:14:2007



P. v. Rennard



Filed 10/10/07 P. v. Rennard CA3



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED



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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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



THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT



(Yuba)



----



THE PEOPLE,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



FRANK ANTHONY RENNARD,



Defendant and Appellant.



C055047



(Super. Ct. No. CRF06488)



After violently attacking his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his child, defendant Frank Anthony Rennard was charged with two counts of penetration by a foreign object, one count of forcible oral copulation, one count of first degree burglary, one count of false imprisonment, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, one count of stalking while under a restraining order, one count of corporal injury upon a spouse, one count of intentionally violating a restraining order, and one count of dissuading a witness.



Defendant pled no contest to one count of penetration by a foreign object (count one) and one count of forcible oral copulation (count three). As part of the plea, it was agreed the sentence on count three would be capped at six years and defendant would agree the incidents were committed at separate times. It was also agreed the remaining counts would be dismissed with a Harvey[1]waiver.



Defendant agreed the court could consider the facts presented in the factual basis for the plea to be true. That is, defendant admitted the following facts. Apparently believing the victim was seeing another man, and seeking to punish her, defendant entered L. R.s home with the specific intent to commit a felony therein, specifically to stalk L. R. L. R. had a valid domestic violence restraining order against defendant at the time. He repeatedly made credible threats which put her in fear. After he forced himself into her home, he physically restrained her, ripped off her clothing, and threatened to sexually assault her. He pinned her to the couch and repeatedly inserted his fingers into her vagina. When told he was hurting L. R., he replied that was the point. Defendant also forced his fingers into L. R.s anus. He then shoved his fingers in her mouth. L. R. repeatedly tried to get away from defendant but could not. He attempted to put his penis in her vagina, but could not. He brought a condom with him, so as not to leave evidence. Defendant forcibly orally copulated L. R. and forced her to touch his penis. This assault lasted approximately three hours, during which time defendant periodically stopped and apologized, then became enraged again. L. R. suffered multiple injuries, including genital injuries, bruises, and marks consistent with being held down and a bite mark to her face. Upon being interviewed by detectives, defendant admitted his actions.



The court did not find defendants prior record sufficient to impose the upper term. The court found, however, that each of the Harvey-waived offenses is an aggravating circumstance. Based on those offenses, the court found the aggravating circumstances are so gross, so severe, are so compelling that there is no way to do anything other than to find the upper term has to be imposed. Accordingly, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of eight years on count one and a consecutive six years on count three. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.



We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.



DISPOSITION



The judgment is affirmed.



ROBIE , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P.J.



MORRISON , J.



Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.



Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line Lawyers.







[1]People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.





Description After violently attacking his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his child, defendant Frank Anthony Rennard was charged with two counts of penetration by a foreign object, one count of forcible oral copulation, one count of first degree burglary, one count of false imprisonment, one count of assault with intent to commit rape, one count of stalking while under a restraining order, one count of corporal injury upon a spouse, one count of intentionally violating a restraining order, and one count of dissuading a witness. Defendant pled no contest to one count of penetration by a foreign object (count one) and one count of forcible oral copulation (count three). As part of the plea, it was agreed the sentence on count three would be capped at six years and defendant would agree the incidents were committed at separate times. It was also agreed the remaining counts would be dismissed with a Harvey waiver. The judgment is affirmed.


Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale