Filed 4/3/18 P. v. Dahl 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Butte)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RANDY EDWIN DAHL,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085049

(Super. Ct. No. 16CF05176)



Appointed counsel for defendant Randy Edwin Dahl filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
We provide the following brief description of the factual and procedural background of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
Defendant is the step-grandfather of the victim. Over the course of six years, defendant touched the victim’s penis numerous times when the victim was under the age of 14 years. Defendant also performed oral sex on the victim on one occasion. According to the victim, defendant watched shows involving nude boys engaging in sexual activity and made him watch sexually explicit videos. On one occasion, defendant made the victim watch a pornographic video depicting boys fondling each other and engaging in oral and anal sex.
After defendant’s sexual abuse of the victim was reported to law enforcement, defendant admitted to investigators that he possessed pornographic material on his electronic devices. He also admitted that he viewed pornographic material involving “young males,” and that it was possible a child may have seen him watching pornography on his computer.
Defendant was charged by a first amended felony complaint with continuous sexual abuse of a child under the age of 14 years within the meaning of Penal Code section 288.5, subdivision (a), and possession of child or youth pornography within the meaning of Penal Code section 311.11, subdivision (a).
After the trial court appointed defendant new counsel due to a conflict of interest and denied his Marsden motion as moot, he pleaded guilty to the continuous sexual abuse count and the prosecution dismissed the remaining count with a Harvey waiver pursuant to a written plea agreement. Thereafter, the trial court denied two additional Marsden motions.
At sentencing, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 16 years in prison. The court also imposed various fines and fees, awarded victim restitution in the amount of $300,000, and issued a 10-year protective order as to the victim. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.


/S/

RENNER, J.



We concur:


/S/

BLEASE, Acting P. J.


/S/

MAURO, J.