People v. Villesca CA4/1

Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Villesca CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081768

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB1104585)

BENITO VILLESCA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Cheryl C. Kersey, Judge. Affirmed. Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2013, a jury convicted Benito Villesca of multiple felony offenses involving sexual abuse of his daughter. He was originally sentenced to an indeterminate term of 300 years to life in prison plus a determinate

term of 156 years and eight months. The court also imposed a restitution

fine of $10,000 under Penal Code1 section 1202.4. Villesca appealed and this court reversed one count and otherwise affirmed the convictions. The case was remanded for resentencing in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Villesca (June 8, 2015, D066700).) On remand, the trial court reduced the determinate portion of the sentence to

140 years and eight months.2 In 2022, Villesca filed a motion to vacate the restitution fine pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (b). The motion did not seek to vacate any of the other fines and assessment imposed by the trial judge. The court summarily denied the motion. Villesca filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Villesca the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel