Filed 3/19/18 P. v. Salazar CA5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

URIEL SALAZAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

F074966

(Super. Ct. No. LF010700A)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Craig Phillips, John S. Somers, and Michael E. Dellostritto, Judges.
Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Uriel Salazar pled no contest to one count of violating Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a) in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 16 years in prison and dismissal of another charge. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Salazar appealed. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
A complaint filed on July 21, 2015, charged Salazar in count 1 with a violation of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b) (oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child younger than 10 years), and in count 2 with violating section 288.5, subdivision (a) (continuous sexual abuse of a child). The preliminary hearing was held on August 6, 2015.
At the preliminary hearing, Deputy Cindy Cisneros testified she spoke with the aunt of the victim who told Cisneros she observed Salazar holding the victim in his lap and moving her up and down while clothed; it appeared Salazar was “rubbing her over his penis.” Cisneros also spoke with the eight-year-old victim. The victim told Cisneros that Salazar “had touched her private parts.”
The victim referred to her vaginal area as her “cuca.” She stated Salazar had touched her three times. The first time, Salazar took the victim to a bedroom, pulled down her pants, and then pulled down his pants. He “stuck his fingers in her cuca and tried to stick his thing in her cuca.” The victim was six years old at the time. In the second incident, Salazar pulled the victim onto the couch, had her lay down on her back, and he laid on top of her. Salazar put his fingers inside her cuca five times. Salazar also “grabbed her boob” and kissed her; he also kissed her on the lips. The victim was then seven years old. The third incident was when the aunt caught him with the victim.
Deputy Jeffrey Eveland testified he interviewed Salazar about the allegations with the assistance of an interpreter. Prior to the interview, Salazar was read his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 in Spanish, and Salazar indicated he understood his rights. Eventually, Salazar admitted to one instance where he digitally penetrated the victim when she was seven years old. Salazar claimed the victim initiated the sexual contact by sitting on his lap and kissing him; he then put his hand down her pants and digitally penetrated the victim’s vagina. Salazar only admitted touching the victim inappropriately on one occasion.
At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Salazar was held to answer and bound over for trial.
The defense apparently subpoenaed records of the sheriff’s department seeking “personal” records, and the People moved to quash the subpoena. The defense filed a written response to the motion to quash. The defense then filed a discovery motion seeking personnel records pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). The defense also filed a lengthy motion seeking to suppress Salazar’s statements as involuntary. The People filed motions in limine.
On October 24, 2016, the trial court held an in camera hearing on the Pitchess motion. The trial court ordered some documents be provided to the defense. On November 30, 2016, the trial court heard and ruled on the People’s motions in limine and the remaining defense motions.
On December 5, 2016, Salazar signed a waiver of rights and plea form. The form provided that he would plead no contest to count 2, a violation of Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a), in exchange for dismissal of count 1. The agreement also provided for a stipulated 16-year prison sentence. Defense counsel and the Spanish interpreter also signed the change of plea form.
At the change of plea hearing on December 5, 2016, the trial court inquired if Salazar had gone over the change of plea form with the interpreter and defense counsel, to which Salazar responded in the affirmative. The trial court proceeded to ask Salazar if he understood each of his rights and was giving up those rights; Salazar replied affirmatively. The defense stipulated to a factual basis for the plea. Salazar affirmed he had sufficient time to discuss the plea with his attorney.
The trial court noted the plea called for a stipulated sentence of 16 years in prison, Salazar would have to register for life as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290, and if he was not a citizen of the United States, his plea to the offense “will result in [his] deportation.” Salazar indicated he understood.
Salazar then pled no contest to count 2 and the trial court accepted the plea. The trial court found the plea was freely and voluntarily made, Salazar understood the consequences of his plea, and there was a factual basis for the plea. The People moved to dismiss count 1, and the trial court granted the request.
At the January 4, 2017, sentencing hearing, the trial court found Salazar would not be a suitable candidate for probation, even if the parties had not stipulated to a prison sentence. The trial court imposed a term of 16 years in state prison for the count 2 offense, noting it was the stipulated term, “but also is determined to best serve in the interest of justice in this case based on the nature of the charges.”
The trial court prohibited all visitation between Salazar and the victim and issued a criminal protective order. Salazar was instructed to register pursuant to Penal Code section 290. Restitution to the victim was ordered in an amount to be determined.
Various statutory fines and fees were imposed. The trial court awarded 537 days of actual custody credit, plus 80 days of conduct credit, for a total of 617 days.
The abstract of judgment filed January 4, 2017, accurately sets forth the sentence, fines, and fees imposed by the trial court, as well as the custody credits awarded Salazar.
Salazar filed a timely notice of appeal on January 5, 2017.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, on September 5, 2017. That same day, this court issued its letter to Salazar inviting him to submit supplemental briefing. Salazar requested and received an extension of time to submit a supplemental brief; however, no supplemental brief was filed.
Salazar entered into a very favorable plea agreement. The count 1 offense, a violation of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b), carries a penalty of 15 years to life. This charge was dismissed as part of the plea agreement. Salazar entered into the plea agreement only after being advised of his rights, acknowledging he understood the consequences of his plea, and conferring with defense counsel. He was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
The terms of a plea agreement are binding on all the parties. (People v. Feyrer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 426, 436–437.) Salazar received the benefit of his bargain and must abide by the plea agreement. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80.)
After an independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.