People v. Oliver CA3

Filed 3/12/24 P. v. Oliver CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098876

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF23-00398)

v.

FRANCISCO ANTONIO OLIVER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Francisco Antonio Oliver has asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with sexual penetration by a foreign object by force, fear, or menace (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A); count I)1 with a one strike allegation (§ 667.61), torture (§ 206; count II), corporal injury of a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); count III), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count IV), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd.(b)(1); count V), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count VI). The complaint further alleged that in the commission of counts I through III defendant inflicted great bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) During his plea, defendant stipulated to a factual basis that indicated, among other things, that he had beaten, strangled, and otherwise tortured his wife over a two-day time period while he kept her from leaving the house; his conduct included burning her nipples and genital area with a lit cigarette and inserting the burning cigarette into her vagina. On February 22, 2023, defendant resolved the case by pleading no contest to counts I and II, admitting the great bodily injury enhancements associated with those counts, and waiving any section 654 issue. In exchange, defendant would receive a stipulated sentence of an aggregate determinate term of eight years in prison (the low term of three years, plus the upper term of five years on the enhancement) for count I, plus a consecutive indeterminate term of seven years to life on count II. Defendant stipulated to the supportive factual basis, that aggravating circumstances existed justifying the imposition of an upper term, and that the trial court could make that determination. The remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed and the one strike allegation stricken.