People v. Beasley CA4/3

Filed 1/27/14 P. v. Beasley CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048115

v. (Super. Ct. No. 09WF1171)

GRADY RICHARD BEASLEY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed. Richard De La Sota, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Grady Richard Beasley of two counts of sexual penetration of a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); all further statutory references are to this code), three counts of committing a lewd act with a child under age 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), and one count of using a minor to model or pose for filming sex acts (§ 311.4, subd. (c)). On two of the lewd act convictions, the jury found defendant engaged in substantial sexual conduct with a child under 14 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)). Defendant also pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography (§ 311.11, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 43 years, 4 months to life. After 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], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, listing three potential issues, and requesting this court to undertake a review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. He has not done so. We reviewed the record and found no prejudicial error. We therefore affirm the judgment.