Filed 5/1/13 P. v. Carroll CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA BRIAN CARROLL,

Defendant and Appellant. B243459

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA098607)

THE COURT: *

Joshua Brian Carroll appeals from a judgm ent following a guilty plea. Because appellant pled no contest after waiving his ri ght to a preliminary hearing, the following facts are taken from the probation report. On July 9, 2012, sheriff’s officials investigated a report that appellant had inappropriately touched his five-year-old daughter in a sexual manner. Appellant

admitted that he had touched th e victim inappropriately on se veral occasions and that he had participated in inapprop riate sexual acts with her. After consulting with counsel, appellant pl ed guilty to one coun t of oral copulation of a person under the age of 14, in violation of Penal Code section 288a,

* BOREN, P. J., ASHMANN-GERST, J., CHAVEZ, J.2 subdivision (c)(1), 1 and one count of lewd conduct on a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a)). Pursuant to a plea agr eement, the court sentenced appellant to state prison for eight years comprised of the middle term of six years fo r one count (§ 288a, subd. (c)(1)), and a consecutive two-year senten ce for the second count (§ 288, subd. (a)). The trial court imposed various fines and cour t fees and appellant wa s awarded three days of actual custody credit. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment in which he checked the preprinted boxes indicating, “This appeal is based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect th e validity of the plea.” As grounds for seeking a certificate of probable cause, appellant claimed the plea was illegal because he

had not conferred with his counsel as to his ri ghts and the nature of the plea. Appellant’s request for a certificate of probable cause was denied. We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After examination of the record, counsel file d an “Opening Brief” containing an acknowledgement that he had been unable to find any arguab le issues. On November 30, 2012, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within wh ich to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished us to consider. No resp onse has been received to date. Appellant was represented by counsel th roughout the proceedings. He was fully apprised of his constitutional rights and the conse quences of his plea. He expressly waived his rights, and his waiv er was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. He specifically

admitted violations of secti ons 288a, subdivision (c)(1), a nd 288, subdivision (a). There was no error in the sentence, which was in acc ord with applicable law and the negotiated disposition. Appellant received a fair hearing and due process.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.3 We have examined the entire record and ar e satisfied that appellant’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities a nd that no arguable issues exist. ( People v.

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.