Court Opinion

ID: 9379203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 23:02:19.527481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.525621
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/14/23 P. v. Segura CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F084889
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. 18CR06489)
                    v.

    MARTIN QUEVEDO SEGURA,                                                                OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Ronald W.
Hansen, Judge. (Retired judge of the Merced County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
         Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J.
       Appointed counsel for defendant Martin Quevedo Segura asked this court to
review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People
v. Wende (1979) 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. Defendant
did not respond. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more
favorable to defendant, we affirm.
                                      BACKGROUND
       Beginning in 2016, defendant sexually molested his own daughter when she was
nine to 11 years old and in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Defendant touched her
breasts and vaginal area, penetrated her vagina with his fingers, and attempted to have
intercourse with her. The touchings occurred one to three times per week. In the sixth
grade, she told her friends, and about a week later, on December 10, 2018, she reported
the touchings to her teacher. Defendant was detained the same day.
       On February 25, 2019, the Merced County District Attorney filed an information
charging defendant with three counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child
the age of 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1, 4 & 5) and
seven counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 years (Pen. Code, § 288,
subd. (a); counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10).
       On April 15, 2022, a jury found defendant guilty on counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10
and acquitted him of the three penetration counts.
       On July 19, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years in prison as
follows: on count 2, the midterm of six years; on counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9,
two consecutive years (one-third the midterm of six years); and on count 10, the midterm
of six years to be served concurrently.
       On September 2, 2022, defendant filed a notice of appeal.

                                             2.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of
any arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We
observe, however, that the abstract of judgment erroneously notes the sentence on
count 10 is to be served consecutively.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The matter is remanded, and the trial court is directed
to prepare an amended abstract of judgment checking the box for “concurrent,” rather
than “consecutive full term,” for the six-year concurrent term imposed on count 10. The
court is further directed to send a copy of the amended abstract to the appropriate entities.

                                             3.