People v. Kauffman CA4/3

Filed 1/22/21 P. v. Kauffman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058602

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17HF1240)

GLEN THOMAS KAUFFMAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert Alan Knox, Judge. Affirmed. Donna L. Harris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

FACTS After his wife died, appellant was left alone with his five-year-old daughter. Traumatized by the loss, appellant’s daughter became very clingy and usually slept in his room. So when she began having sleepovers with her girlfriends, it was not unusual for them to sleep in that room, too, usually on a couch or air mattress. The two girls appellant was convicted of molesting were among those sleepovers. The jury found appellant guilty of nine counts, six of lewd and lascivious acts on a child under fourteen (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and three counts of sexual penetration of a child under ten (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)). It found true the enhancement alleged that there were multiple victims of his crimes. The court sentenced appellant to 170 years in prison, comprising five 25 years-to-life terms and three 15- years-to-life terms. One 25-years-to-life term was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654, which prohibits double punishment for the same incident. DISCUSSION Kauffman filed an appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him on that appeal. Counsel filed a brief which fully set forth the facts of the case. In fact, her conscientious and very helpful brief included 60 pages of facts, which assisted the court greatly in locating possible areas of difficulty in the transcript. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she could find no issues to argue on appellant’s behalf. Appellant 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 appellant’s lot. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) It should be emphasized that our search was not for issues upon which appellant 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