People v. Oceguera CA4/1

Filed 6/12/24 P. v. Oceguera CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082566

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF005237)

NICOLAS HERNANDEZ OCEGUERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, William D. Quan, Judge. Affirmed. Anita Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant Nicolas Hernandez Oceguera was charged with forcible oral

copulation of Jane Doe 1 (Pen. Code,1 § 287, subd. (c)(2)(A); count 1); sexual penetration of Jane Doe 1 by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A); count 2); and sexual battery by force on Jane Doe 2 (§ 243.4, subd. (a)).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Oceguera later entered into a plea agreement which called for a guilty plea to count 1 with a grant of probation and a 180-day limit of potential custody. About a month later, the trial court concluded it could not accept the proposed sentencing limitation. Oceguera was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. Thereafter, defense counsel expressed a doubt as to Oceguera’s competency. Ultimately a hearing was held and the court determined Oceguera was competent to proceed with the case. Oceguera entered an open plea to all three counts of the information. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a middle-term sentence of six years for count 1 plus a consecutive one-year sentence for count 3. The court imposed and then stayed a middle-term sentence for count 2 under section 654. Oceguera 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 review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Oceguera the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not respondent. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has submitted a brief summary of the evidence presented in the preliminary hearing in this case. We will incorporate the summary into this opinion to provide some context for this appeal. On September 22, 2021, Jane Doe 1 went to Oceguera’s home-office for a massage, as she had done every six months or so for 10 years. As she was lying on her stomach, the massage progressed as normal for 20 to 30 minutes before she felt Oceguera trying to pull her exercise shorts down. He stopped