Court Opinion

ID: 9907669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 20:02:40.638878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:59.892352
License: Public Domain

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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097439

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super. Ct. No. 21F8255)

           v.

 CURTIS REESER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         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.) After
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, 123.)

                                                             1
                                    BACKGROUND1
       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
body. When the victim was 12 or 13, defendant hugged her and held her tight against
him. She felt that defendant was getting an erection 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 out 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 acts 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 acts 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 information 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 special 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 ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees and awarded
him 725 days of custody credit.
       Defendant appeals without a certificate of probable cause.

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

                                              2
                                       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 determine 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 days 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 affirm 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.

                                              3