People v. Carrillo CA2/2

Filed 2/3/15 P. v. Carrillo CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B257176

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA128306) v.

DAVID P. CARRILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:*

David P. Carrillo (Carrillo) appeals the judgment after he was convicted by a jury of forcible child molestation (count 1, Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and aggravated sexual assault on a child (counts 3, 4, 5, and 6, Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(1)). His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende), raising no issues for us to consider. On September 24, 2014, we notified Carrillo of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, a brief or letter setting forth any arguments supporting his appeal. That time expired, and Carrillo opted not to file a brief or letter. Upon review of the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues.

* ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

The evidence at trial established that Carrillo sexually assaulted his girlfriend’s daughter on multiple occasions. The girl was under the age of 14, and Carrillo was more than seven years older than her. After Carrillo was convicted, he was sentenced to a total of 65 years to life: count 1— the low term of five years, run consecutive; count 3—15 years to life, run consecutive; count 4—15 years to life, run consecutive; count 5—15 years to life, run consecutive; and count 6—15 years to life, run consecutive. Carrillo was credited with 587 days precommitment confinement, including 76 days conduct credit. After examining the record, we are satisfied that Carrillo’s appellate counsel complied with her responsibilities. We conclude that Carrillo has received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure, and our review of the record. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123–124.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.