People v. Matute CA2/2 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 2/5/14 P. v. Matute CA2/2
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 TWO
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B250840
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BA402015)
    v.
    MICHAEL MATUTE,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    THE COURT:*
    Defendant and appellant Michael Matute (defendant) appeals from a judgment of
    conviction of sex crimes against a child. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
    People v. Wende (1979) 
    25 Cal.3d 436
     (Wende), raising no issues. On November 25,
    2013, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30
    days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have
    considered. That time has elapsed, and defendant has submitted no brief or letter. We
    have reviewed the entire record, and finding no arguable issues, affirm the judgment.
    *        ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J., CHAVEZ, J., FERNS, J.†
    †     Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
    pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
    Defendant was charged with one count of sexual intercourse or sodomy with
    Maria G. (Maria), a child 10 years of age or younger, in violation of Penal Code section
    288.7, subdivision (a), and two counts of lewd acts upon Maria, a child under the age of
    14 years, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a).
    A jury convicted defendant of all three counts as charged. On August 19, 2013,
    the trial court sentenced defendant to the mandatory term of 25 years to life in prison for
    the violation of Penal Code section 288.7, subdivision (a), and to the high term of eight
    years on count 2. As to count 3, the court sentenced defendant to the middle term of six
    years, to be served concurrently with the term imposed as to count 2. Defendant filed a
    timely notice of appeal.
    The prosecution evidence showed that prior to July 27, 2012, defendant lived with
    Maria’s mother and her mother’s five children, two of them fathered by defendant, in a
    one-bedroom apartment. When Maria was in the fourth and fifth grades, defendant
    touched her breast and buttocks on several occasions, and penetrated her anus with his
    penis at least once or twice. Maria was 11 years old when she testified regarding
    defendant’s behavior. The jury also heard a recording of Maria’s interview by Nicole
    Farrell, LCSW and child interview specialist, in which Maria described the abuse much
    as she did in her testimony.
    Los Angeles Police Department Detective Blanca Pasos interviewed defendant
    and a recording of the interview was played for the jury. After waiving his Miranda
    rights,1 defendant was given to understand that a medical examination of Maria showed
    sexual abuse, when in fact the report had been inconclusive. After initial denials,
    defendant admitted touching Maria’s breasts and vagina with his hands, and penetrating
    her anus once with the tip of his penis, using Vaseline. Defendant expressed remorse and
    hoped that Maria would forgive him. After the interview, defendant wrote a statement in
    which he again admitted using Vaseline and expressed remorse.
    1      See Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 444–445.
    2
    After the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code
    section 1118.1, defendant testified. He read a prepared statement admitting he touched
    Maria’s breasts over her clothing, got on top of her, and used Vaseline, but claimed he
    did not penetrate her anus. During cross-examination defendant admitted he inserted his
    penis in Maria, but claimed he went no further than between the cheeks of her buttocks.
    Defendant also testified he had been sexually abused as a child in Honduras, and that if
    Maria were in court, he would ask her forgiveness.
    We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate
    counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. We
    conclude that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure
    and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the
    judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 
    528 U.S. 259
    , 278;
    People v. Kelly (2006) 
    40 Cal.4th 106
    , 123-124.)
    The judgment is affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B250840

Filed Date: 2/5/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021