People v. Ramonsantiago CA2/6

Filed 9/16/25 P. v. Ramonsantiago CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334530 (Super. Ct. No. 22F-03040) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

FLORENTINO MARCELINO RAMONSANTIAGO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Florentino Marcelino Ramonsantiago was convicted by jury of forcible rape of a child over 14 years old. (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2).)1 The jury also found true an allegation appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury during the commission of the rape. (§ 12022.7.) He challenges the great bodily injury enhancement, claiming defense counsel

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the

Penal Code.

was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object when the prosecutor argued in closing that pregnancy resulting from rape constitutes great bodily injury. We disagree and will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND When Angelica Doe was 17 years old appellant entered her bedroom while she was sleeping and raped her. The rape resulted in pregnancy. Doe’s body changed substantially during her pregnancy. She hardly ate, threw up a lot, was nauseous a lot, and once felt she might faint. She did not have pain or discomfort, but her family did not want her to work while she was pregnant. Doe delivered a baby boy after approximately 11 hours of labor. Labor was painful and she had an epidural but she did not need stitches. DNA testing confirmed appellant is the biological father of Doe’s baby. A jury found appellant guilty of forcible rape of a child over 14 years old (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)) and found he personally inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of the rape. (§ 12022.7.) He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. DISCUSSION Appellant contends the great bodily injury enhancement should be reversed because defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor misconduct during closing argument. One who claims they were deprived of their constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel presents “‘a mixed question of fact and law’” requiring de novo review. (People v. Ogunmowo (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 67, 76.) We defer to the trial court’s factual determinations supported by sufficient evidence but independently determine whether the facts