People v. Quinones CA4/3

Filed 2/4/16 P. v. Quinones 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052307

v. (Super. Ct. No. C078106)

HENRY QUINONES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Appellant Henry Quinones was convicted by a jury of 26 counts of lewd acts with a child (Pen. Code, § 288(a)), all arising from his continuous molestation of a girl who was eight years old at the time of trial. The trial court sentenced him, in absentia, to 56 years in state prison, a term arrived at by imposing the mid-term punishment of six years for the first count and adding two years (1/3 the statutory midterm) for each of the additional 25 counts. Appellant eventually appealed from that sentence, and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised this court he could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) He filed a brief which set forth the very unusual facts of the case and the points counsel had considered as possible appellate issues. Counsel also notified appellant of his right to submit a letter brief directly to us and appellant did so, but raised no cognizable arguments. We have considered the points raised by counsel and have scoured the record – a record limited in this case by the absence of a trial transcript – for other possible issues. We agree with appellate counsel there are no arguable issues on appeal and therefore affirm.