Court Opinion

ID: 9891267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 21:03:50.647906+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:27.161059
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/17/23 P. v. Turner 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Butte)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C097756

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 21CF01072)

         v.

KIANTE DOMINIQUE TURNER,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Kiante Dominique Turner 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.) After independently examining the record, we shall affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       Defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of continuous sexual abuse of minors,
J.F. and A.F. (Pen. Code, § 288.5; counts 2 & 3),1 in exchange for dismissal with a
waiver (pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) of one count of oral
copulation or sexual penetration of J.F., a child under 10 years of age (§ 288.7, subd. (b);
count 1), and dismissal of the special allegations that he engaged in substantial sexual
conduct and committed the crimes on more than one victim during the same course of
conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(7) & (8)). (People v. Turner (Aug. 26, 2022, C094937)
[nonpub. opn.] (Turner I).)2 On the plea form, defendant initialed the box regarding a
Harvey waiver that stated: “ ‘I stipulate the sentencing judge may consider my prior
criminal history and the entire factual background of the case, including any unfiled,
dismissed or stricken charges or allegations or cases when granting probation, ordering
restitution, or imposing sentence.’ ” (Turner I, supra, C094937.)
       Defendant stipulated to the probation report as the factual basis for his plea.
(Turner I, supra, C094937.) The probation report recounted defendant’s statement to law
enforcement in which he admitted to engaging in numerous sexual acts with J.F. during
the time she was between the ages of six to 15 years old, and numerous sexual acts with
A.F., which began when she was approximately nine years old. (Ibid.) Defendant also
provided a statement to probation that was contained in the report wherein he admitted
committing the offenses detailed in the police report and confirmed that his abuse of the
children started when they were six and nine years old, respectively. (Ibid.) He also
regretted taking advantage of his position as the victims’ stepfather and explained that he

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 We consider defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the record of defendant’s
direct appeal in Turner I as a request to incorporate the record in case No. C094937 and
grant the request.

                                              2
felt the victims may have felt trapped because he had such control over their lives at the
time. (Ibid.)
       Although the original probation report recommended the middle term sentences,
the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of 16 years for each count. (Turner
I, supra, C094937.) Defendant appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions but
remanded the case for resentencing in light of recent amendments to section 1170, which
limited a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences (Senate Bill No. 567
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731)). (Turner I, supra, C094937.) While this
court noted that defendant had effectively stipulated to some of the relevant facts
necessary to impose an upper term under the new law, the trial court had also engaged in
its own factfinding regarding several factors in aggravation that were not stipulated to by
defendant, proven through certified records of conviction, or proven to a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. (Ibid.) Because we could not conclude that the court would have
selected an upper term sentence based only on permissible factors, we remanded for
resentencing. (Ibid.)
       In January 2023, following issuance of the remittitur, the trial court resentenced
defendant. At the hearing, the prosecutor introduced certified records of conviction in
three prior criminal matters, and the court also took judicial notice of the court files in
those cases.
       After considering, among other things, defendant’s plea form and Harvey waiver,
the original and supplemental probation reports, the original and supplemental statements
in aggravation, and letters from the victims and defendant, as well as the certified records
of defendant’s prior convictions, the trial court denied defendant’s request for middle
term sentences and reimposed full, consecutive 16-year upper terms for each count under
section 667.6, subdivision (d). In doing so, the court cited defendant’s certified prior
convictions and several of the aggravating factors to which he had stipulated given the
Harvey waiver to support the upper term. The court considered defendant’s youth

                                               3
pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (b)(6) because he started the sexual abuse at
approximately age 22. But the court found that defendant’s youthfulness did not
contribute to the offenses because defendant continued to abuse the girls until he was 31
years old, and that imposing a lower term sentence would be contrary to the interests of
justice.
       Without objection, the trial court reimposed the same amount of victim restitution,
ordered defendant to pay mandatory minimum fees and fines, and awarded defendant
pre- and post-sentencing credits. Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of
probable cause.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to
determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30
days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we
received no communication from defendant.
       Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                              4
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                        /s/
                                                  Duarte, J.

We concur:

      /s/
Hull, Acting P. J.

      /s/
Keithley, J.*

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

                                              5