Filed 10/16/17 P. v. Edmonds CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CRAIG ALLAN EDMONDS, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

H043078 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. B1151814)

Defendant Craig Allan Edmonds, Jr., pleaded no contest to attempted pimping of a minor (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 266h, subd. (b)(1)), and was placed on formal felony probation. Upon defendant’s timely appeal, we appointed counsel to represent him in this court. Appellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but raising no arguable issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, and received no response.

We have reviewed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable appellate issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440–441.) We include here a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, and the conviction and punishment imposed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.) Finding no arguable issue, we will affirm the judgment.

I. Trial Court Proceedings

According to preliminary hearing testimony, then-17-year-old A.L. was walking on a street in Oakland in January 2011 when a car drove up beside her. Defendant was driving the car, and another man was a passenger. Someone in the car asked A.L. to get in, and she agreed. While they drove, the men talked to A.L. about making money, which she understood to be a reference to prostitution. Defendant drove to a hotel room in Mountain View. Defendant, the other man from the car, A.L., and a woman named Stephanie all entered the room. Defendant instructed Stephanie to look out for A.L. and show her what to do. Stephanie made phone calls and used the Internet to try to arrange “dates” for her and A.L. Stephanie told the prospective clients that she and A.L. would perform sexual services for money. Stephanie instructed A.L. to change into an outfit Stephanie provided her, which included high heels and a strapless shirt. A.L. was then instructed to follow Stephanie out to walk around on the streets in the area to try to attract “dates,” which she did for multiple hours. A.L. was eventually taken into protective custody by the police when they found her at the hotel.

Defendant was held to answer and charged with one count of pimping of a minor 16 years old or older (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant initially pleaded no contest to the charged count as part of a negotiated disposition under which imposition of sentence would be suspended; defendant would serve the lesser of one year in jail or credit for time served as a condition of felony probation; and probation would terminate upon defendant’s release. When defendant returned for sentencing, the court accepted the prosecution’s request to amend the charged count to attempted pimping of a minor 16 years old or older (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 266h, subd. (b)(1)) because the original charged offense would have made defendant ineligible for probation. (Pen. Code, § 1203.065, subd. (a).) Defendant pleaded no contest to the amended count. One condition of probation was service of 189 days in county jail, which was deemed served with presentence custody credit (95 actual days plus 94 days’ custody credit (Pen. Code, § 4019)). The trial court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 court facilities funding assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and a $200 restitution fine plus a $20 administrative fee (former Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subds. (b)(1), (l); Stats. 2011, ch. 45, § 1, p. 1830). Based on its review of defendant’s statement of assets, the court waived imposition of a Penal Code section 290.3 fine (apparently finding that defendant did not have the ability to pay the fine).

We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue.

II. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.