People v. Busane CA2/6 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Filed 6/6/22 P. v. Busane 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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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    has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B315478
    (Super. Ct. No. LA078878)
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Los Angeles County)
    v.
    MANUEL BUSANE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    A jury found Manuel Busane guilty of two counts of
    forcible lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (b)(1)) and
    two counts of nonforcible lewd acts on a child (id., subd. (a)). The
    jury also found true allegations that Busane committed his
    crimes against multiple victims. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (c)(4) & (8),
    (e)(4).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true
    allegations that Busane suffered two prior strike convictions
    (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and two prior
    serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that he served
    1 Statutory        references are to the Penal Code.
    five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). It sentenced him to
    consecutive terms of 58 years to life in state prison on the forcible
    lewd acts convictions (15 years to life on each conviction, tripled
    to 45 years because of the prior strikes, an additional 10 years for
    the prior serious felonies, and an additional three years for three
    of the five prior prison terms), and stayed the sentences on the
    nonforcible lewd acts convictions.
    On appeal, this court reversed Busane’s nonforcible
    lewd acts convictions, and remanded for the trial court to exercise
    its newfound discretion to strike or impose the four five-year
    serious felony enhancements it imposed previously. (People v.
    Busane (Feb. 11, 2019, B283564) [nonpub. opn.] [
    2019 WL 513586
    at p. *6].) The court failed to follow our remand order, however,
    so after another appeal we remanded again with directions that
    the court exercise its discretion to strike or impose the
    enhancements. (People v. Busane (May 18, 2021, B306791)
    [nonpub. opn.] [
    2021 WL 1974385
     at p. *2].) We also directed the
    court to strike the six one-year prior prison term enhancements
    that had been imposed as part of Busane’s original sentence
    pursuant to a change in law that occurred after we resolved his
    first appeal. (Ibid.) At resentencing, the trial court struck the
    prison priors but declined to strike the serious felony
    enhancements, sentencing Busane to consecutive terms of 55
    years to life in state prison: 15 years to life on each forcible lewd
    acts conviction, tripled to 45 years because of the prior strikes,
    and an additional 10 years for the prior serious felonies.
    We appointed counsel to represent Busane in this
    appeal. After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening
    brief that raises no arguable issues. On March 16, 2022, we
    advised Busane by mail that he had 30 days within which to
    2
    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 Busane’s attorney fully complied with her responsibilities
    and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
    , 441.) We note, however, that the abstract of
    judgment does not conform to the trial court’s sentence: While
    the abstract correctly indicates that the court sentenced Busane
    to an aggregate term of 110 years to life in prison, it fails to list
    the four serious felony enhancements that make up 20 years of
    that sentence.
    DISPOSITION
    The clerk of the superior court is directed to prepare
    an amended abstract of judgment that correctly reflects the
    sentence imposed by the trial court, and forward a copy to the
    Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other
    respects, the judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
    TANGEMAN, J.
    We concur:
    GILBERT, P. J.
    YEGAN, J.
    3
    Michael V. Jesic, Judge
    Superior Court County of Los Angeles
    ______________________________
    Maggie Shrout, under appointment by the Court of
    Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
    No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B315478

Filed Date: 6/6/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/6/2022