Filed 12/26/24 P. v. Bui CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100605 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23CF02430) v. JAMES HOANG BUI, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant James Hoang Bui filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. Statutory references are to the Penal Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2023, the victim disclosed to authorities that, when she was between the ages of six and nine years old, defendant touched her vagina with his hands multiple times and

with his mouth three times. Deleted messages on defendant’s phone also indicated he sent the victim pornographic videos when she was 10 years old.

The People charged defendant with three counts of oral copulation with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)), three counts of sexual penetration with a child years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)), two counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), and two counts of distributing or showing pornography to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a)(2)).

Defendant ultimately pled no contest to one count of oral copulation with a child years old or younger. Prior to sentencing, the trial court denied defendant’s Marsden motion. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) The court sentenced defendant to years to life imprisonment. The court ordered defendant to pay over $200,000 in victim restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(F).

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.

DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having examined the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/ KRAUSE, J.