Filed 7/16/15 P. v.Widby CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDRE L. WIDBY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B260300

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA131765)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 

John Doyle, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark S. Givens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________
2

Defendant and appellant, Andre L. Widby, appeals from the judgment entered 

after his no contest plea to one count of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor 

(Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (c)).1 He was sentenced to a term of 16 months in prison.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Widby was originally charged by information with four counts of lewd and 

lascivious acts on a child under 14 (§ 288), based on his alleged conduct with two minors.

At a preliminary hearing on March 14, 2014, Widby’s step-daughter, D.B., 

testified that on two occasions in October 2013, and on one occasion in January 2014, 

Widby engaged in sexual acts with her when she was 13 years old. During these 

incidents, Widby touched her breasts, rubbed her vagina, had her perform oral sex on 

him, and engaged in sexual intercourse with her. After the first two incidents, Widby 

gave D. money. During the third incident, D.’s mother discovered what was going on 

and called the police. These incidents were the basis for counts 1, 2 and 3 of the 

information.

Deputy Sheriff Maricruz Perez, from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department, testified about a fourth incident which involved a five- or six-year-old girl 

named Heaven S. She told Perez that she encountered Widby at an apartment complex 

where she lived and Widby worked as a handyman. Widby drove up to Heaven in a golf 

cart, called her over and “touched her private part, which she also refers to as her ‘front 

area.’ ” Heaven then moved away and Widby got back into his golf cart and drove off.

Widby subsequently entered into a plea agreement whereby these four counts of 

lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 were dismissed, and he pled no contest to a 

single felony count of illegal sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5, subd. (c)).2

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2

Section 261.5, subdivision (c), provides: “Any person who engages in an act of 

unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the 

perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by 

imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to 

subdivision (h) of Section 1170.”
3

As part of the plea agreement, Widby was not required to register under the Sex Offender 

Registration Act (§ 290). He was credited with 516 total days of presentence custody 

credit, which amounted to more time than his 16-month sentence.

Widby filed a timely notice of appeal along with a request for a certificate of 

probable cause, which the trial court granted.

We appointed counsel to represent Widby on appeal. After reviewing the record, 

counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record 

pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. We directed counsel to send the 

record on appeal and a copy of the opening brief to Widby, and we notified him that he 

had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished 

us to consider. Widby has not filed a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

We have examined the entire record and are satisfied defense counsel has fully 

complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable appellate issue exists. (Smith v. 

Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278 [120 S.Ct. 746]; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at 

p. 443.)

Widby’s request for a certificate of probable cause listed the following grounds for 

attacking the legality of his no contest plea: ineffective assistance of counsel; the 

prosecution’s failure to turn over Brady material3; and, various acts of prosecutorial 

misconduct. However, in light of the very generous plea agreement Widby accepted, and 

his subsequent failure to file a supplemental brief specifying what issues he wanted to 

raise on appeal, we remain convinced that no arguable appellate issue exists.

 

3 Under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [10 L.Ed.2d 215], the prosecution 

has a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defendant.
4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

KITCHING, J.

JONES, J.

 



Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.