Filed 5/7/18 P. v. Franklin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ALEXIS BRICE FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C085486

(Super. Ct. No. 17CF02933)




Appointed counsel for defendant Alexis Brice Franklin 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.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The Charged Conduct
The parties stipulated a factual basis in the probation report. We take the facts from that report.
The 15-year-old victim was a close family friend of defendant. Defendant invited her to hang out and go shopping. On the way to the mall, defendant showed the victim images of naked men on her cell phone. Defendant said she was paid to have sex, and said if the victim wanted to be a “ ‘ho,’ ” she would have to start acting like one.
At a clothing store, defendant forced the reluctant victim try on lingerie. Back at defendant’s home, defendant insisted the victim try on defendant’s lingerie. The victim declined because she was uncomfortable, and defendant got upset and yelled. The victim was intimidated and finally tried on some lingerie. As the victim undressed, defendant’s boyfriend came into the room.
At one point, defendant asked to use the victim’s phone and did not return it. When the victim’s mother tried to call, defendant ignored and eventually blocked her calls.
The victim spent the night at defendant’s house. When defendant and her boyfriend were having sex, the boyfriend called to the victim, inviting her to watch or participate. The victim declined.
The next day, defendant again took the victim to clothing stores. She intimidated the victim into trying on lingerie and taking pictures. That night, the victim and defendant went to a restaurant. During the meal, the victim left to use the restroom. When she returned, she finished her meal. After dinner, she felt dizzy and unable to walk.
She wanted to lay down, but defendant told her not to sleep because the “ ‘party didn’t start until about 11:00 p.m.’ ” The victim dressed in lingerie after defendant yelled at her. The victim started falling asleep on the bed, and defendant took photos of her and posted them online. Defendant told the victim that men would be coming over to have sex with defendant and the victim. She told the victim to say she was 19 or 20. When the victim said she was uncomfortable, defendant got upset and yelled.
The victim heard defendant talking with her boyfriend on speaker phone. The boyfriend said, “ ‘Don’t do it, she’s too young, we’re going to get in trouble.’ ” Defendant told her boyfriend to “ ‘shut the fuck up.’ ” The victim fell asleep around 10:30 p.m.
When she woke, the victim noticed her lingerie had been pulled to her shoulders, and she was no longer wearing underwear. Her whole body hurt, and her back was scratched. She believed she had been raped, and later she saw blood in her underwear.
Back at defendant’s home, defendant told the victim to undress and shower. When defendant asked the victim if she remembered anything, the victim said no and defendant said, “ ‘Good.’ ” The victim was eventually picked up by her mother.
Defendant’s Plea and Sentencing
Defendant pleaded no contest to pimping of a prostitute under age 16 (Pen. Code, § 266h, subd. (b)(2)) and admitted suffering a prior strike. In exchange, the remaining allegations were dismissed with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
The trial court imposed a 16-year aggregate sentence (the eight-year upper term, doubled for the strike). The court awarded 296 days of credit (148 actual, 148 conduct) and ordered various fines and fees.
DISCUSSION
Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.





/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Hull, Acting P. J.




/s/
Murray, J.