Filed 11/14/18 P. v. Crowell CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KEN RAYMOND CROWELL, Defendant and Appellant. |
A153970
(San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 16-NF-005537)
|
Defendant Ken Crowell was sentenced to three consecutive eight-month county jail terms and five years’ probation, subsequently modified to replace two of the eight-month jail terms with home detention and electronic monitoring, after he pleaded no contest to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse. On appeal, his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Crowell was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND[1]
In 2008 and 2009, when she was 16 and 17 years old, Jane Doe had an ongoing sexual relationship with Crowell, who was then approximately 50 years old and the head of her high school’s music department. The relationship continued until after Doe turned 18, and ended in 2014 when Doe discovered that Crowell was involved with another woman. Doe reported her relationship with Crowell to police in May 2015.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2017, the San Mateo County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Crowell with 12 counts of sexual penetration against a minor under the age of 18 (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (h)) (counts 1-12), two counts of oral copulation of a person under 18 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(1)) (counts 13-14), and three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c)) (counts 15-17).
That same day, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, Crowell pleaded no contest to counts 15, 16, and 17 and the remaining charges were dismissed. As part of the plea agreement, Crowell agreed to waive any defenses based on the statute of limitations and to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. The parties agreed to a two-year maximum prison term and consideration by the trial judge of reduction of the charges to misdemeanors pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b).
On February 2, 2018, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered Crowell to serve five years’ probation, on the condition that he serve eight months in county jail on each count consecutively, for a total term of 24 months. The trial court also indicated it would approve or recommended the San Mateo County Work Furlough Program, through which defendants can work or go to school during the day and return to jail at night.
On March 13, Crowell moved to modify the terms of his probation to include a recommendation of home detention and participation in the LCA Electronic Monitoring Program, on the grounds that he was ineligible for the San Mateo County Work Furlough Program because of his sex offender registration.
On April 3, the trial court denied the motion as to count 15 and granted it as to counts 16 and 17, replacing those two consecutive eight-month jail terms with home detention and participation in the LCA Electronic Monitoring Program.[2]
On March 23, Crowell filed a notice of appeal. Crowell did not seek a certificate of probable cause, and indicated on his notice of appeal that his appeal “is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
Crowell’s opening brief was filed on September 21. Crowell was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and did not do so.
DISCUSSION
We have carefully reviewed the entire record in accordance with our Wende obligations, and we conclude there are no arguable issues on appeal that require further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Richman, J.
We concur:
_________________________
Kline, P.J.
_________________________
Stewart, J.
A153970; P. v. Crowell
[1] Because Crowell entered into a negotiated plea agreement, we derive the facts surrounding his offenses from the probation report.
[2] At the hearing, Crowell’s counsel indicated that Crowell was also renting a space to live from his employer, such that he could live and work in the same location and continue his employment while under home detention.
