Court Opinion

ID: 9949959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 21:02:42.395796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:43.295809
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/12/24 P. v. Oliver 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C098876

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                  (Super. Ct. No. CRF23-00398)

         v.

FRANCISCO ANTONIO OLIVER,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Francisco Antonio Oliver has asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The People charged defendant with sexual penetration by a foreign object by
force, fear, or menace (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)(1)(A); count I)1 with a one strike
allegation (§ 667.61), torture (§ 206; count II), corporal injury of a spouse (§ 273.5, subd.
(a); count III), kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a); count IV), dissuading a witness (§ 136.1,
subd.(b)(1); count V), and criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a); count VI). The complaint
further alleged that in the commission of counts I through III defendant inflicted great
bodily injury. (§ 12022.7, subd. (e).) During his plea, defendant stipulated to a factual
basis that indicated, among other things, that he had beaten, strangled, and otherwise
tortured his wife over a two-day time period while he kept her from leaving the house; his
conduct included burning her nipples and genital area with a lit cigarette and inserting the
burning cigarette into her vagina.
       On February 22, 2023, defendant resolved the case by pleading no contest to
counts I and II, admitting the great bodily injury enhancements associated with those
counts, and waiving any section 654 issue. In exchange, defendant would receive a
stipulated sentence of an aggregate determinate term of eight years in prison (the low
term of three years, plus the upper term of five years on the enhancement) for count I,
plus a consecutive indeterminate term of seven years to life on count II. Defendant
stipulated to the supportive factual basis, that aggravating circumstances existed
justifying the imposition of an upper term, and that the trial court could make that
determination. The remaining counts and enhancements were dismissed and the one
strike allegation stricken.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                              2
       On April 26, 2023, defendant indicated he wanted to withdraw his plea, and the
trial court appointed defendant a new attorney to investigate. On May 17, 2023,
defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea arguing ineffective assistance of counsel,
which the People opposed.
       On June 12, 2023, the trial court heard the arguments of counsel, and defendant’s
original attorney testified. The court denied defendant’s motion and sentenced him in
accordance with the plea agreement. The court awarded 120 actual days credit, plus 18
days conduct credit for a total of 138 days of custody credit. The court imposed a sex
offender registration fine (§ 290.3) plus penalty assessments totaling $1,230; a $10,000
restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a suspended parole revocation restitution fine in the same
amount (§ 1202.45), a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40
court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8).
       Defendant timely appealed, and his request for a certificate of probable cause was
granted by the trial court.
                                       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 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed;
more than 30 days have passed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no errors that would arguably result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment.

                                              3
                                  DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                                /s/
                                           Duarte, Acting P. J.

We concur:

     /s/
Renner, J.

     /s/
Boulware Eurie, J.

                                       4