1

Filed 12/6/ 23 P. v . Reeser CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Calaveras)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CURTIS REESER
,

Defendant and Appellant. C097439

(Super. Ct. No. 21F8255 )

Appointed counsel for defendant Curtis Reeser filed an opening brief that sets

forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether

there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Aft er reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 12 3 .)2 BACKGROUND 1
When the victim was 12 years old, defendant told her to shower, watched her
undress and shower, and then pushed her into his bedroom and rubbed lotion on her

bod y

. When the victim was 12 or 13, defendant hugged her and held her tight against

him. She felt that defendant was getting an er ection but did not recognize what it was at

the time. Defendant also touched the victim ’s breasts or buttocks under her clothes on a
number of occasions. This conduct continued from when the victim was 12 years old
until she was 18 years old and moved ou t of the house

. The first amended information charged defendant with: continuous sexual abuse of the victim when she was under the age of 14 years old between April 2007 and July
2009 (Pen. Code, § 288.5
, subd. (a) ; count I )
, lewd act s upon the victim between July 2009 and July 2010 when she was 14 years old ( Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1) ; count II )
, and lewd act s upon the victim between July 2010 and July 2011 when she was 15 years
old ( Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (c)(1) ; count III ). The amended informat ion alleged as aggravating circumstances that the victim was particularly vulnerable and defendant took advantage of a position of trust

. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3), (a) (11).) Defendant pleaded not guilty to all counts and denied all specia l allegations. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded

no contest to counts II and III and admitted the aggravating circumstances in exchange

for dismissal of count I and imposition of the upper term of three years in state prison on

count II and one

- third the middle term of eight months consecutive in state prison on

count III

. The trial court order ed defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded
him 725 days of custody credit. Defendant appea ls without a certificate of probable cause.

1 Defendant agreed that the factual basis for his plea could be taken from the preliminary hearing transcript

.3 DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to

review the record and d etermine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
( People v. Wende
, supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 436

. ) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.

More than 30 da ys have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende , we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Accordingly, we will aff

irm the judgment.

DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ Keithley, J. *

We concur:

/s/ Hull, Acting P. J.

/s/ Renner, J.

* Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.