Filed 3 / 28 / 23 P. v. Flores garcia CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JORGE LUIS FLORESGARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B323620 (Super. Ct. No. 17F

- 05767) (San Luis Obispo County)

Jorge Luis Floresgarcia appeals from the trial court’s order imposing victim restitution after he was convicted by guilty plea
of three counts of sexu al penetration by a foreign object of a person incapable of giving consent because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability

. ( Pen

. Code, § 289, subd. (b) 1 ; counts 6, 7, & 8.) We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

that raises no arguable issues. On January 18 , 202 3 , we notified appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personal ly submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The 30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any
contentions or issues for our consideration. In June 2017, a ppellant lived with his girlfriend, A.C., and
her six

- year

- old daughter, S.C. W hile A.C. was at work, she left S.C. in the care of appellant

. During that time , app ellant sexually abused S.C. on several occasions. Appellant was arrested after S.C. told family members about the abuse. In May 2021, appellant pleaded guilty to committing the
crimes as charged in counts 6, 7, and 8 of the amended
information

. In June 2021, t he trial court sentenced appellant to 12 years in state prison. As part of his sentence, the trial court
ordered appellant to pay a felony restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subd ivision (b) in the amount of $10,000

, but stayed th at fine based on appellant’s inability to pay (citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5 th 1157) . The trial court
also ordered appellant to pay an additional felony restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.45 in the amount of $10,000 , but
ordered that fine suspended u nless appellant’s parole is revoked

. In September 2022

, after a contested restitution hearing
that had been continued from August

, t he trial court ordered appellant to pay victim restitution to the California Victim Compensation Board in the amount of $4,580.50

. 2 The

2 This court, on its own motion, has ordered the record augmented to include the following documents filed in the

sup erior court, case number 17F

- 05767: a bstract of j udgment for sentencing , filed June 7, 2021

, o rder for v ictim r estitution, filed3

augmented record

, which includ es the order for victim
resti tution

, as well as the abstract of judgment for the restitution
order

, establishes that rest it ution was based on updated
documents presented to the trial court at the September

r estitution hearing

. W e have reviewed the entire record as augmented and are satisfied that appellant’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. ( People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment [order imposing victim restitution] is
affirmed.
NOT T O BE PUBLISHED

.

YEGAN, J.
We concur:

GILBERT

, P. J.

BALTODANO , J.

September 26, 202 2

, and the a bstract of j udgment for the restitution order , filed September 26, 2022.Craig B. V an Rooyen , Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Jolene Larimore , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.