Filed 8/ 1/ 16 P. v. Garcia CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARGARITO GONZALEZ GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant. H042695 (Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS142125 A )

By plea agreement, defendant Margarito Gonzalez Garcia was sentenced to

26 years in state prison for one count of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct upon

John Doe (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b) (1) ) 1 ; two counts of lewd and lascivious conduct

upon John Doe (§ 288, subd. (a)); one count of forcible lewd and lascivious conduct upon

Jane Doe (§ 288, subd. (b) (1) ); and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct upon

Jane Doe (§ 288, subd. (a)). Upon defendan t’s timely appeal

, we appointed counsel to

represent him in this court. A ppellate counsel filed a brief stating the case and facts but

raising no issue s. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his

own behalf and received no resp onse

.

We have review ed the entire record to determine if there are any arguable

appellate issues. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 440

– 441.) We include here a

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. Victims are referred to in

the record as John Doe and Jane Doe. We do the same.2

brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, and the conviction and

punishment imposed. ( People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123

– 124.)

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDI NGS

According to the probation report, in 2014 John Doe’s mother reported to local

law enforcement that she suspected defendant had sexually abused John Doe in 2012,

based on a recent disclosure by John Doe. Defendant was known to John Doe’s mother.

An officer interviewed John Doe, who told the officer that on five or six occasions

defendant had put his penis inside John Doe’s anus . On at least on e of those occasions,

defendant had forcefully removed John Doe’s pants and underwear and pushed him down

on his back to prevent him from moving. John Doe was 10 years old when he reported

the abuse, meaning that he was around eight years old when the abu se occurred.

Also in 2014, Jane Doe’s parents reported to a different police agency that they

suspected defendant had sexually abused Jane Doe one month earlier, based on a recent

disclosure by Jane Doe. Defendant was related to Jane Doe. An officer int erviewed

Jane Doe, who told the officer that on five or six occasions, defendant took off her

clothing, kissed her on the mouth, touched her bare breasts, and penetrated her vagina

and anus with his fingers and his penis . Jane Doe told defendant to stop but he would

not. Jane Doe was seven years old at the time of the abuse.

Defendant was held to answer and charged by information with: (count 1) sex or

sodomy of John Doe (a child under 10 years old) (§ 288.7, subd. (a)); (count 2) sex or

sodomy of Jane Doe (a child under 10 years old) (§ 288.7, subd. (a)); (count 3) forcible

lewd acts with John Doe (§ 288, subd. (b) (1) ) ; (counts 4 and 5) lewd acts with John Doe

(§ 288, subd. (a)); and (count s 6 and 7 ) lewd acts with Jane Doe (§ 288, subd. ( a )).

T he pa rties reached a stipulated disposition in May 2015

. The People amended

the information to add count eight (forcible lewd acts with Jane Doe (§ 288,

subd. (b)(1)) ) ; defendant pleaded no contest to counts three, four, five, six, and eight; the3

People agreed to dismiss the remaining counts; and defendant agreed to receive a 26

- year

determinate state prison term.

T he trial court sentenced defendant to 26 years in state prison in June 2015

, consisting of: a 10

- year upper term for count three (§ 288, subd. (b) (1)); a 10

- year full

consecutive upper term for count eight (§§ 288, subd. (b)(1), 667.6, subds. (d), (e)); and

six years consecutive for count s four, five, and six ( two years for each count based on

one

- third the mid dle term ; §§ 288, subd. (a), 1170.1, subd. (a)). The trial court ordered

defendant to pay a $ 10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subds. (b)(1)) with an additional

$ 10,000 parole revocation fine imposed but suspended pending successful completion of

parole (§ 1202.4 5 ); a $300 fine ( § 290.3, su bd. (a)) with $930 in penalty assessments

(consisting of : $300 (§ 1464, subd. (a)(1)), $210 (Gov. Code, § 76000, subd. (a)(1)),

$60 (§ 1465.7), $150 (Gov. Code, § 70372) , $60 (Gov. Code, § 76000.5), $30

(Gov. Code, § 76104.6, subd. (a)(1)), and $120 (Gov. Code, § 76104.7 , subd. (a) )); a

$ 200 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); a $ 150 court facilities funding

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1)) ; and victim restitution in an amount to be

determined later (§ 1202.4, subd. (f))

. Defendant received 354 days of presentence credit

based on 308 actual days plus 46 conduct credits ( §§ 2933 .1, subd. (c), 1192.7,

subd. (c)(6) ).

We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue

.

II. D ISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.____________________________________ Grover, J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________ Rushing, P.J.

____________________________
Premo , J

.