Springer v. Department of Justice CA3

Filed 3/4/22 Springer v. Department of Justice CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

JERRY ARTHUR SPRINGER, C094838

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-MI- 2005-0004599) v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jerry Arthur Springer has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error in defendant’s favor, we affirm.

1

BACKGROUND On September 28, 2005, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of a lewd and lascivious act with a 14- or 15-year-old child when defendant was at least 10 years older than the child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1)). 1 The trial court suspended imposition of defendant’s sentence, granted a five-year term of formal probation, and ordered defendant to register as a sex offender under section 290. On August 31, 2021, defendant filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging as unconstitutional the requirement that he must register for life as a sex offender under section 290, arguing it violates equal protection. The trial court denied the petition on September 10, 2021. Defendant timely appealed; the case was fully briefed on December 20, 2021, and assigned to this panel in January 2022. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 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. We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.