Filed 4/10/17 P. v. Ledford 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

GARY LEE LEDFORD, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.
C080927

(Super. Ct. No. CRF14723)





This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We briefly recount the facts and procedural history in accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.
Defendant Gary Lee Ledford, Jr., committed acts of molestation upon M.L.’s two daughters from a previous relationship. M.C. was born in August 1997, and A.C. was born in June 1996. From January 2000 to December 2007, defendant made M.C. give him “handjobs” and “blowjobs,” made her urinate on him, and orally copulated her. These acts occurred one to two times a week when they lived in a particular house from 1999 to 2003 and continued when they moved and lived in a trailer house. When A.C. was about six years of age, defendant put his hands over her pants and on top of her vagina. He had her touch his penis. She believed that defendant touched her vagina five times and his penis less than five times. The abuse ended in 2007 when M.L. separated from and later divorced defendant. M.C. and A.C. did not report the abuse to their mother until 2014.
Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to continuous sexual abuse of M.C. (Pen. Code, § 288.5; undesignated section references are to this code; count 1); an amended charge of lewd and lascivious conduct upon A.C. (§ 288, subd. (a); count 2); admitted that he committed a violation against more than one victim (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7)); and had substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) in exchange for a state prison sentence of nine years and an agreement defendant would be released for four weeks pending sentencing with a Cruz waiver. In the event he violated the Cruz waiver, he would be sentenced to 24 years. Defendant did not violate the Cruz waiver and was sentenced to state prison for an aggregate term of nine years.
Defendant appeals. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5).
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. (Wende, supra, 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.



HULL , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P. J.



NICHOLSON , J.