People v. Candia CA6

Opinion

Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Candia CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H053844 (Santa Clara County

Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C2203482)

v.

PAUL RAYMOND CANDIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Paul Raymond Candia appeals from a final judgment in a criminal action. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant has not done so.

Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, we provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” (Id. at p. 110.) We also identify and will correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

I. WENDE/KELLY REVIEW Defendant was charged with numerous crimes related to the sexual abuse of his former girlfriend’s daughter between 2014 and 2017, when she was between seven and 10 years old. He ultimately pleaded no contest to a single count of forcible lewd acts on

2

a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b); count 6) and two counts of nonforcible lewd acts on a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a); counts 11 and 12) in exchange for a prison sentence of between eight and 14 years and dismissal of the remaining charges and allegations. No aggravating sentencing circumstances were admitted or found true.

The probation officer recommended a sentence of nine years, consisting of the lower term of five years on count 6 and consecutive terms of two years (one-third of the middle term) on counts 11 and 12. According to the probation report, defendant turned 26 years old in April 2014. Defendant reported spending approximately six years in foster care as a child and witnessing his stepfather physically abuse his mother for a period of approximately one year. He denied “exposure to sexual trauma” as a child. The record contains no evidence or discussion of a possible link between defendant’s crimes and his youth or childhood experiences. (See People v. Fredrickson (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 984, 994–995.)

At the sentencing hearing, the court noted that it was required to impose a full consecutive term on either count 11 or count 12 under Penal Code section 667.6. (See People v. Pelayo (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 115, 124–125.) The court sentenced defendant to 11 years in prison, consisting of the middle term of eight years on count 6 and a consecutive lower term of three years on count 11; the court imposed a concurrent threeyear lower term on count 12. The court waived or suspended various fines and fees, and ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined. Defendant was awarded 1,373 days of presentence custody credit, representing 1,194 actual days and 179 days of conduct credit under Penal Code section 2933.1.

Defendant appealed, specifying in the notice of appeal that he was challenging “the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.” While the appeal was pending, appointed counsel notified the trial court of a clerical error in the abstract of judgment: counts 11 and 12 were incorrectly described as representing forcible lewd acts under Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b). The trial

3

court corrected the abstract of judgment to reflect that the statutory basis for defendant’s convictions on counts 11 and 12 is Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). But the amended abstract of judgment still incorrectly indicates that defendant was convicted of committing lewd acts “by force” on those counts.

We have reviewed the entire record and find no arguable issue with respect to the judgment. We will, however, remedy the remaining clerical error in the abstract of judgment, which may be corrected at any time. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)

II. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The abstract of judgment is corrected to remove the words “by force” from the description of counts 11 and 12. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

____________________________________

Grover, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________

Danner, J.

____________________________

Chung, J.*

H053844 The People v. Candia

_________________

*Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.