Diigo Post Excerpt:
We need not set forth a detailed statement of facts to resolve appellant's sentencing claim because, as he admits, it involves a "pure question of law" and is "not fact-based." Suffice it to say, the record shows appellant repeatedly sexually molested his girlfriend's daughter when she was 10 and 11 years old. He was convicted of six counts of lewd conduct with a child and one count of attempting to commit a lewd act on a child. (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 664.) As to four of the counts, the jury found appellant had substantial sexual conduct with the victim, thus prohibiting a grant of probation. (§1203.066, subd. (a)(8).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations appellant had previously been convicted of one serious felony and six violent "strike" felonies. (§ 667, subds. (a), (d), (e)(2)(A).) The court also found appellant had served a prior prison term. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Pursuant to the Three Strikes law, the trial court imposed consecutive terms of 25 years to life on each of the underlying counts. It then added a five-year term for the prior serious felony conviction, bringing appellant's total term of imprisonment to 180 years to life.