P. v. Leon
Filed 3/6/07 P. v. Leon CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RODAS GONZALES LEON, Defendant and Appellant. | E040433 (Super.Ct.No. SWF13369) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michael S. Hider, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil Auwarter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An information charged defendant with forcible lewd act on a child under age 14 (Pen. Code,[1] 288, subd. (b)(1)) together with a great bodily injury allegation
( 12022.8) in count 1, forcible rape of a child under age 14 ( 261, subd. (a)(2), 269, subd. (a)(1)) in count 2, and a lewd act on a child under age 14 ( 288, subd. (a)) in count 3. Under a written plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to counts 1 and 3 in exchange for a stipulated prison term of 8 years and the dismissal of count 2 and the great bodily injury allegation to count 1. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 8 years, consisting of 6 years for count 1 and a consecutive 2 years for count 3.[2]
FACTS[3]
Defendant forcibly raped and impregnated the 12-year-old daughter of his girlfriend. A few nights later, defendant came into the minors bedroom and climbed on top of her, but she was able to struggle free.
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed, and upon his request this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493]. The brief sets forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues and requests this court to undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.[4]
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P.J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
J.
RICHLI
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
[1] All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
[2] Although the minute order for the sentencing hearing indicates the court struck count 2 and the great bodily injury allegation to count 1, the reporters transcript for the sentencing hearing does not indicate this order. Because it is clear from the record on appeal that both parties and the court intended this action, count 2 and the great bodily injury allegation to count 1 are deemed stricken. (People v. Jackson (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 248, 254.)
[3] The facts are taken from the preliminary hearing.
[4] The alleged coercion of defendant by the trial court to plead guilty must be raised by petition for habeas corpus. (People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361-364.)
