1

Filed 5/2/13 P. v. Avalos CA4/2 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

RUBEN AVALOS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 E057064 

 (Super.Ct.No. RIF1100195) 

 OPINION 

 APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jeffrey Prevost, Judge. 

Affirmed. 

 Patrick E. DuNah, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

INTRODUCTION 

 On July 6, 2011, an information was filed against defendant and appellant Ruben 

Avalos1 involving three victims. As to Jane Doe 1, defendant was charged with five 

counts of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person 10 years of 

age or younger. (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), counts 1-5.) As to Jane Doe 2, defendant 

was charged with one count of engaging in oral copulation or sexual penetration (§ 288.7, 

subd. (b), count 6), and two counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act (§ 288, 

subd. (a), counts 7 & 8). As to Jane Doe 3, defendant was charged with one count of 

engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person 10 years of age or 

younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a), count 9), and two counts of engaging in oral copulation or 

sexual penetration (§ 288.7, subd. (b), counts 10 & 11). 

 On August 2, 2012, jury voir dire commenced. However, on August 7, 2012, prior 

to the completion of jury selection, a negotiated disposition was reached. By stipulation 

of the parties, six counts of section 288, subdivision (b)(1), (committing a lewd act on a 

child using force or violence), were added: counts 12 and 13 as to Jane Doe 1; counts 14 

and 15 as to Jane Doe 2; and counts 16 and 17 as to Jane Doe 3. Defendant pled guilty to 

counts 12 through 17, in exchange for stipulated sentence of 46 years in state prison and 

the dismissal of the balance of the charges. 

 1 The court notes that the record shows defendant’s name both as “Ruben Avalos” 

and as “Ruben Avalos Camarillo.” 
3

 At the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied probation. The trial court then 

sentenced defendant to the agreed term of 46 years in state prison. Count 12 was deemed 

the principal count, and defendant was sentenced to the upper term of eight years on that 

count. Consecutive upper terms of eight years were imposed on counts 13 through 16, 

and a consecutive midterm of six years was imposed on count 17. The trial court 

awarded defendant 676 days of custody credits under section 2933.1. The court imposed 

a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, and a $200 parole revocation fine under 

section 1202.45, suspended pending successful completion of parole. The court also 

ordered defendant to register under section 290. 

 Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and Appellate Defendants, Inc., filed a 

timely amended notice. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

 In his plea agreement, defendant agreed that “I did the things that are stated in the 

charges that I am admitting.” 

ANALYSIS 

After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to 

represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of 

the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to 

undertake a review of the entire record. 
4

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he 

has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we 

have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues. 

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

McKINSTER 

 J. 

We concur: 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

KING 

 J.