People v. Fletcher CA3

Filed 11/13/14 P. v. Fletcher CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C074745

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08F09282)

DRAMAINE FLETCHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is the second appeal for defendant Dramaine Fletcher. Prior to the first appeal, a jury convicted defendant of pimping a 14-year-old minor, pandering a 14-year-old minor, photographing a minor involving sexual conduct, possession of child pornography, statutory rape of a person under the age of 16 years, commission of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child of 14 years, furnishing marijuana to a minor, and

1

admitting or keeping a minor in a house of prostitution. (People v. Fletcher (Mar. 15, 2013, C063305) [nonpub. opn.] (Fletcher).)1 The trial court found that defendant had a prior strike conviction, denied his request to dismiss the strike, and sentenced him to 19 years four months in prison, including consecutive terms on count 9 [commission of a lewd and lascivious act (oral copulation of defendant) upon a child of 14 years] and count 10 [commission of a lewd and lascivious act (digital penetration of the minor) upon a child of 14 years]. (Fletcher, supra, C063305.) In defendant’s first appeal, this court reversed the consecutive sentences on counts 9 and 10 and remanded the matter for a new sentencing hearing on those counts, directing the trial court to exercise its discretion in imposing consecutive or concurrent sentences. (Fletcher, supra, C063305.) On remand, the trial court reimposed consecutive sentences on counts 9 and 10, explaining that the victim was particularly vulnerable; the crimes disclosed a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness; and defendant’s offenses were distinctly different and separate acts. In this second appeal, defendant now contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences on counts 9 and 10, because it relied on an improper factor in aggravation (that the victim was particularly vulnerable) and it failed to consider all mitigating factors. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we will affirm the trial court’s sentencing order.