People v. Guerrero CA2/6
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Hernaldo J. Baltodano (author), Kenneth R. Yegan, Arthur Gilbert
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 11/10/22 P. v. Guerrero CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B319880 (Super. Ct. No. TA149250) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
FELIPE GUERRERO,
Defendant and Appellant.
Felipe Guerrero molested A.A. over a seven-year period. He touched her breasts and orally copulated her. He made her touch his penis until he ejaculated. He also inserted his penis into her vagina on at least five different occasions. Prosecutors charged Guerrero with three counts of forcible sexual intercourse with a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (a)), one count of oral copulation of a child (id., subd. (b)), and one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child (§ 288.5, subd. (a)) for his molestation of A.A. Guerrero pleaded no contest to the 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. continuous sexual abuse charge in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining four charges. He agreed to serve a 12-year, middle-term state prison sentence as part of his plea. We appointed counsel to represent Guerrero in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief that raises no arguable issues. On September 19, 2022, we advised Guerrero by mail that he had 30 days within which to submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We have not received a response. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Guerrero’s attorney fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
YEGAN, J.
2 Teresa P. Magno, Judge Superior Court County of Los Angeles ______________________________ James Koester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12