People v. Vega CA4/3

Filed 12/23/14 P. v. Vega 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050097

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CF1176)

JUAN MANUEL VEGA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Appellant Juan Manuel Vega was convicted by a jury of sexual assaults upon his two daughters, ages eight and seven. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison, comprised of consecutive sentences of 25 years to life sentences on one count pertaining to each girl. We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief which set forth in concise and well-articulated detail the facts of the case. Vega was invited to express his own objections to the proceedings against him, but did not. Under the law, this put the onus on us to review the record and see if we could find any issues that might result in some kind of amelioration of Vega’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which Vega would prevail, but only issues upon which he might possibly prevail. We have examined the record and found no arguable issue. This is not surprising. In fact, it is what we find in the vast majority of cases in which appellate counsel files a Wende brief. Even the most cynical observer of the appellate system would have to recognize that appellate counsel has a financial incentive for finding issues. The simple matter is counsel makes more money if he/she finds an issue that is arguable than if he/she does not. So while it sometimes happens that an appellate court will find issues after appellate counsel has thrown in the towel, it is unusual. This case is not unusual – at least not in any way that would benefit Vega. We find no error in his trial and affirm the judgment against him. FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a fine description of the facts of the case. We can find no errors or omissions in that description, so, rather than try to improve upon it, we reproduce it here: “Prosecution Evidence “Appellant fathered three children with Lucia C. (“Lucia”), two daughters named N. and Samantha, and a son named Juan. At the time of trial in 2014, N. was