IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
January 20, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
GARRY GENE GRAHAM, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 09F4732)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte , J.
P. v. Graham
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Garry Gene Graham 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.
Shortly before midnight on June 8, 2009, Deputy Steven Berg contacted the victim at a liquor store. The victim told Berg that she had come to the store to buy a bottle of alcohol and visit with her friends who worked there. While there, she met defendant for the first time, and accepted several drinks from his bottle of alcohol. As she prepared to leave the store, defendant told her she had been drinking too much and offered to drive her home in his car. She accepted the ride.
Although she had difficulty remembering the details, she next remembered laying outside of the car, on her back, with defendant on top of her. The two were engaged in sexual intercourse. She tried to stop him, "screaming for help" and "begging him to stop," but she was not strong enough to move him. The next thing she recalled was that he had left and she was by herself. A man and his wife drove her back to the liquor store, where she discovered that her car was missing. Her friends called the police.
The following day, Berg located the victim's car in front of defendant's residence. A search of the car revealed several pieces of identification belonging to people other than defendant. Berg contacted some of these individuals and was told the items Berg had found were stolen from their cars.
Defendant was charged with one count of rape of an unconscious person, one count of forcible rape, seven counts of receiving stolen property, and one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle. Two prior strike convictions were also alleged.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pled guilty to forcible rape, two counts of receiving stolen property, and one count of unlawful taking of a vehicle, and admitted one prior strike conviction, in exchange for a stipulated 20-year prison term and the dismissal of the remaining charges and strike allegation.
The court imposed the agreed upon 20-year term along with various fines and fees.
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.