People v. Iventura CA3

Filed 8/17/20 P. v. Iventura CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090121

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18F4693)

v.

APOLINAR ANGEL IVENTURA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Apolinar Angel Iventura pled guilty to two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years of age, perpetrated against two different child victims. In exchange, the People dismissed the remaining charge and enhancements. The parties agreed that defendant would either receive nine years of probation with a 10- year suspended prison sentence or eight years in prison. The stipulated factual basis for the plea was defendant’s preliminary hearing transcript. In accordance with Penal Code section 288.1, the court ordered an evaluation of defendant’s mental condition. The court-appointed forensic psychologist, Dr. Kent

1

Robert Caruso, testified at defendant’s sentencing hearing that he was uncertain of the extent of abuse suffered by the victims, which made his assessing defendant’s ongoing danger difficult. However, he was worried that the young age of one victim, differing ages of the victims, and defendant’s language/cultural barriers lessened the likelihood of defendant’s successful treatment. The victims’ parents and one victim made statements requesting defendant be sent to prison. Following argument of the parties, the court found defendant was not appropriate for probation and imposed the agreed-upon aggregate prison term of eight years. Defendant was given credit for 178 days of actual credit and 26 days of conduct credit for a total of 204 days of custody credit. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine, a $300 stayed parole revocation restitution fine, two $40 court operations assessment fees, and two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees. It reserved jurisdiction to award restitution at a later date. Finally, the court issued stay-away orders protecting the victims in the case for a period of 10 years. Defendant timely appealed, but did not receive a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Our review of the record has disclosed that the trial court orally stayed, rather than suspended the $300 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.45, subd. (c)). However, we find it unnecessary to amend the court’s oral pronouncement to suspend rather than stay this fine because the court’s signed order following sentencing already made this correction.