People v. Villesca CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/26/24 P. v. Villesca CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D081768
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB1104585)
BENITO VILLESCA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Cheryl C. Kersey, Judge. Affirmed.
Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2013, a jury convicted Benito Villesca of multiple felony offenses
involving sexual abuse of his daughter. He was originally sentenced to an
indeterminate term of 300 years to life in prison plus a determinate
term of 156 years and eight months. The court also imposed a restitution
fine of $10,000 under Penal Code1 section 1202.4.
Villesca appealed and this court reversed one count and otherwise
affirmed the convictions. The case was remanded for resentencing in an
unpublished opinion. (People v. Villesca (June 8, 2015, D066700).) On
remand, the trial court reduced the determinate portion of the sentence to
140 years and eight months.2
In 2022, Villesca filed a motion to vacate the restitution fine pursuant
to section 1465.9, subdivision (b). The motion did not seek to vacate any of
the other fines and assessment imposed by the trial judge. The court
summarily denied the motion.
Villesca filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered
Villesca the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not
responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 We have not set forth the lengthy list of code sections that were the
basis of Villesca’s convictions. This appeal does not challenge the prior
judgment. Likewise, we will not include a statement of facts in this opinion.
The facts of the offenses are fully addressed in our prior opinion.
2
has identified a possible, but not arguable, issue that was considered in the
evaluation of the potential merits of this appeal: Whether any of the
restitution orders imposed in this case under section 1202.4 are subject to
total or partial vacatur in light of section 1465.9.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Villesca on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Villesca’s motion to vacate restitution fines is
affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
KELETY, J.
3