People v. Montes CA5

Filed 10/10/25 P. v. Montes CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F088875 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF173257A) v.

ERMILO GARCIA MONTES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Charles R. Brehmer, Judge. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Meehan, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant Ermilo Garcia Montes stands convicted of three counts of lewd or lascivious acts committed against two victims under the age of 14 years: Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a) (section 288(a); counts 1, 2);1 section 288, subdivision (b)(1) (section 288(b)(1); count 3). The jury also found true special allegations that these crimes were qualifying offenses under section 667.61, subdivision (c) (section 667.61(c)), of the One Strike law with a multiple-victim aggravating circumstance alleged as to each count under section 667.61, subdivision (e) (section 667.61(e)). Defendant was originally sentenced to three consecutive terms of 25 years to life under section 667.61, subdivision (j)(2) (section 667.61(j)(2)). In resolving defendant’s first appeal, we ultimately vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing; defendant was resentenced on October 30, 2024, to three consecutive terms of 15 years to life under section 667.61, subdivision (b). After resentencing, defendant filed a notice of appeal again, challenging the resentencing and requesting court-appointed counsel. Counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal, and filed a Wende2 brief. Defendant was afforded an opportunity to raise any issues on his own, but has not done so. We have independently reviewed the entire record. Other than clerical errors in the abstract of judgment, we find no arguable issues that could result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, and we affirm the judgment.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).