Filed 2/10/15 P. v. Vargas CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL VARGAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

F067828

(Super. Ct. No. 12CM2925)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Donna K.

Tarter, Judge.

Maureen L. Fox, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
2

Appellant Michael Vargas pled guilty to oral copulation or sexual penetration with 

a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b))1, and was sentenced to 

prison for an indeterminate term of 15 years to life. Following independent review of the 

record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 18, 2012, a Hanford police officer interviewed a nine-year-old girl 

regarding allegations that Vargas, her stepfather, had touched her inappropriately. 

According to the victim, she had been lying in bed the previous night watching cartoons 

with Vargas and her mother. While her mother was asleep, Vargas placed his hand over 

the victim’s clothing and touched her vagina. He then put his hand under the victim’s 

clothing and his fingers inside her vagina. The victim further stated that Vargas first

began touching her inappropriately three months earlier when they lived in Puerto Rico

and that during that time Vargas touched her vagina on three separate occasions, once 

over her clothes and twice under her clothes.

The victim also reported another incident of inappropriate touching that occurred 

after the family moved to Hanford. On that occasion, while the victim’s mother was 

cooking and Vargas was with the victim in another room, Vargas placed his finger in the 

victim’s vagina. He then forcibly placed her hand on his penis and forced her to 

masturbate him.

Vargas was located, brought to the police station, and interviewed after he waived 

his Miranda rights.

2

 Although Vargas initially denied touching the victim, he eventually 

admitted much of the conduct attributed to him by her. A SART exam of the victim 

disclosed that she had abrasions and lacerations to the opening of her vagina.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3

On September 28, 2012, the district attorney filed an information charging Vargas 

with two counts each of oral copulation or sexual penetration of a child 10 years of age or 

younger (counts 1 & 2), lewd and lascivious conduct by force with a child under the age 

of 14 (counts 3 & 4/§ 288, subd. (b)(1)), penetration by force of a child 14 years of age or 

younger (counts 5 & 6/§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B)), sexual penetration of a child under the age 

of 14 by a person more than seven years older (counts 7 & 8/§ 269, subd. (a)(5)), and 

lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14 (counts 9 &10/§ 288, subd. 

(a)).

Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 also alleged a great bodily injury enhancement 

(§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and that the offenses occurred under circumstances that made 

Vargas’s offenses punishable by a sentence of 15 years to life (§ 667.61, subds. (b) & 

(c)).

On June 17, 2013, Vargas pled guilty to one count of penetration of a child 10 

years of age or younger in exchange for a stipulated term of 15 years to life and the 

dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations.

On July 12, 2013, the court sentenced Vargas to the stipulated term of 15 years to 

life.

Vargas’s appellate counsel has filed a brief which summarizes the facts, with 

citations to the record, raises no issues, and asks this court to independently review the 

record. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Vargas has not responded to this 

court’s invitation to submit additional briefing.

Following an independent review of the record, we find that no reasonably 

arguable factual or legal issues exist.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.