(Super. Ct. No. NCR79347)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Jamie Mitchell Carter entered a negotiated plea of guilty to one count of sexual acts with a child 10 years old or younger. The trial court sentenced him to state prison in accordance with the plea.
Defendant's ensuing appeal is subject to the principles of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110. In accordance with the latter, we will provide a summary of the offense and the proceedings in the trial court.
Defendant was accused by information of two counts of violating Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (b)*fn1  (sexual acts with child 10 years old or younger).
On April 13, 2011, defendant pleaded guilty to count I, with the understanding that the remainder of the information would be dismissed and he would be sentenced to state prison for 15 years to life.
According to the probation report, defendant, the husband of the babysitter of the three-year-old victim, admitted that he orally copulated the victim.
The trial court sentenced defendant according to the plea agreement, with presentence custody credits of 408 days (355 actual days and 53 conduct credit days).*fn2  The court ordered defendant to pay a $1,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), with a suspended restitution fine pending future parole revocation (§ 1202.45); a $1,080 fine, including assessments (id., § 290.3); a $30 court security fee (id., § 1465.8); a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and restitution amounts of $360 to the California Crime Victims Compensation and Government Claims Board and $200.20 to the victim's family (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)).
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts 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 of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.