Filed 7/24/25 P. v. Solis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Plaintiff and Respondent, C101770 v. (Super. Ct. No. 23CF04740) MICHELLE CHRISTINE SOLIS, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michelle Christine Solis asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I Defendant was an eighth grade English teacher. She had intercourse with one of her 14-year-old students and also shared nude photographs of herself with the victim.

A criminal complaint charged defendant with unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and distributing or showing pornography to a minor. (Pen. Code, §§ 261.5, subd. (d), 288.2, subd. (a)(2).)1 Defendant pleaded no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and the trial court dismissed the pornography count pursuant to the People’s request with a waiver pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.

The trial court found the following aggravating factors: that the victim was particularly vulnerable; the manner in which the crime was committed indicated planning, sophistication, or professionalism; and the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence. As a mitigating factor, the trial court found that defendant had no prior record. The trial court found that the factors in aggravation outweighed the mitigating factor and sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in prison.

The trial court reserved the issue of victim restitution and imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Defendant did not request a certificate of probable cause.

II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

/S/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/ KRAUSE, J.

/S/ WISEMAN, J.

 Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.