People v. Floresgarcia CA2/6 ( 2023 )

Filed 3/28/23 P. v. Floresgarcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B323620
(Super. Ct. No. 17F-05767)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)
v.
JORGE LUIS
FLORESGARCIA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Jorge Luis Floresgarcia appeals from the trial court’s order
imposing victim restitution after he was convicted by guilty plea
of three counts of sexual penetration by a foreign object of a
person incapable of giving consent because of a mental disorder
or developmental or physical disability. (Pen. Code, § 289, subd.
(b)1; counts 6, 7, & 8.)
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
that raises no arguable issues. On January 18, 2023, we notified
appellant by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally
submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. The
30 days have since passed, and appellant has not presented any
contentions or issues for our consideration.
In June 2017, appellant lived with his girlfriend, A.C., and
her six-year-old daughter, S.C. While A.C. was at work, she left
S.C. in the care of appellant. During that time, appellant
sexually abused S.C. on several occasions. Appellant was
arrested after S.C. told family members about the abuse.
In May 2021, appellant pleaded guilty to committing the
crimes as charged in counts 6, 7, and 8 of the amended
information. In June 2021, the trial court sentenced appellant to
12 years in state prison. As part of his sentence, the trial court
ordered appellant to pay a felony restitution fine pursuant to
section 1202.4, subdivision (b) in the amount of $10,000, but
stayed that fine based on appellant’s inability to pay (citing
People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157). The trial court
also ordered appellant to pay an additional felony restitution fine
pursuant to section 1202.45 in the amount of $10,000, but
ordered that fine suspended unless appellant’s parole is revoked.
In September 2022, after a contested restitution hearing
that had been continued from August, the trial court ordered
appellant to pay victim restitution to the California Victim
Compensation Board in the amount of $4,580.50.2 The
2 This court, on its own motion, has ordered the record
augmented to include the following documents filed in the
superior court, case number 17F-05767: abstract of judgment for
sentencing, filed June 7, 2021, order for victim restitution, filed
2
augmented record, which includes the order for victim
restitution, as well as the abstract of judgment for the restitution
order, establishes that restitution was based on updated
documents presented to the trial court at the September
restitution hearing.
We have reviewed the entire record as augmented and are
satisfied that appellant’s attorney fully complied with her
responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment [order imposing victim restitution] is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
BALTODANO, J.
September 26, 2022, and the abstract of judgment for the
restitution order, filed September 26, 2022.
3
Craig B. Van Rooyen, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.