IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta)
February 2, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL VICTOR NEEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. 10F3127)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
P. v. Neel
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Michael Victor Neel asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We find no arguable error and no entitlement to additional presentence credit. We will affirm the judgment.
In August 2009, a detective with the Shasta County Sheriff's Office interviewed the victim of an alleged child molestation. The victim reported that defendant, her biological grandfather, sexually abused her repeatedly when she was 10 years old. The abuse took place in defendant's home and included touching, digital penetration of the victim's vagina, and forced oral copulation. The abuse stopped when the victim turned 11 years old.
A pretextual call was made to defendant as part of the investigation. The victim asked the defendant, "How could you do that to me?" Defendant answered: "I thought a long time ago, that's what you wanted."
Defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of orally copulating a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)),*fn1 26 counts of committing lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), 20 counts of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 14 (§ 289, subd. (j)), and 21 counts of orally copulating a child under the age of 14 (§ 288a, subd. (c)(1)). It was further alleged that the majority of defendant's crimes involved substantial sexual conduct. (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) The complaint was later amended to include a charge of continuous sexual abuse of a child. (§ 288.5.)
Defendant pleaded guilty to continuous sexual abuse of a child and agreed to a stipulated term of 16 years in prison, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated term of 16 years, ordered him to pay various fines and fees, awarded 96 days of custody credit (84 actual and 12 conduct), and reserved jurisdiction regarding victim restitution.
This court granted defendant's motion for relief from the untimely filing of his notice of appeal, and defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asked 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 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.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: HULL , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.