IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
January 11, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
PEDRO BALTAZAR, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF114583A)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Baltazar
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Appointed counsel for defendant Pedro Baltazar has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no errors and no concerns regarding presentence credits. We shall affirm the judgment.
Between September 2007 and September 2009, defendant fondled his daughter's genitals and breasts more than three times and sexually touched her genitals against her will while she was restrained.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a minor (count 5) and committing a lewd act on a child (count 13). The remaining counts were dismissed. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to an upper term sentence on count five and a midterm sentence on count 13, for an aggregate sentence of 17 years in state prison.
The trial court awarded presentence credit of 252 days actually served plus 37 days for conduct, for total presentence custody credit of 289 days, and imposed various fines and fees as set forth on the abstract of judgment.*fn1
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks us to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defendant 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE , Acting P. J. HULL , J.