People v. Montano CA1/5

Filed 3/25/26 P. v. Montano CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A169898 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 01001931062) ARMANDO MARTIN MONTANO, Defendant and Appellant.

Armando Martin Montano (appellant) appeals from the trial court’s victim restitution orders following his guilty plea to four counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)).1 We affirm. BACKGROUND In October 2021, appellant was charged by information with numerous sexual offenses against three minor victims: six counts of intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (a)); six counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)); and twelve counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)).

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In November 2023, appellant pled guilty, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 38 years imprisonment, to four of the forcible lewd acts counts— two as to Jane Doe 1, one as to Jane Doe 2, and one as to Jane Doe 3. Appellant also admitted the aggravating factor that the victims were particularly vulnerable (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(3)). Appellant acknowledged that victim restitution would be ordered and agreed to a Harvey2 waiver. At the December 2023 sentencing hearing, victim impact statements were made orally or in writing by Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 1’s father, stepmother, and aunt; the grandmother of both Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2; and Jane Doe 3’s mother. These statements described the devastating and lasting psychological impact on all three victims. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to the stipulated sentence and set a date for the restitution hearing. In advance of the restitution hearing, the People filed a brief seeking $1 million in noneconomic losses for each of the three victims, relying on the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing and the victim impact statements made at sentencing. The People also submitted information on the amount of jury awards or settlement payments in numerous civil child molestation cases. Appellant filed a response arguing the amount requested by the People was excessive, distinguishing the civil cases awarding comparable amounts as involving abuse continuing for years and/or perpetrated by teachers, clergy, or caregivers. Following argument, the trial court issued orders awarding restitution of $1 million for each victim.