People v. Ramos CA2/4

Filed 12/17/13 P. v. Ramos CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B248546

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA111850) v.

GUADALUPE MOLINA RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed. Edward H. Schulman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is the second appeal brought by defendant Guadalupe Molina Ramos. His initial appeal followed a conviction by jury of multiple counts of lewd acts upon several child victims. As relevant here, the jury also found defendant had committed the crimes against multiple victims within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.61, subdivision (b) (the “One Strike” law). We determined that the trial court improperly imposed the 15-year-to-life sentence required by that section for one of the counts, continuous sexual abuse (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)), because the sentencing scheme under the One Strike law did not apply to the crime of continuous sexual abuse at the time defendant committed the offense. We rejected the remainder of defendant’s contentions and remanded the matter for resentencing. After defendant was resentenced, he filed the instant appeal. Finding no error, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Given that this appeal involves only the sentence defendant received after remand, a review of the facts is unnecessary. On April 30, 2013, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. As it did when it initially sentenced defendant, the court imposed six consecutive 15-year-to-life terms. For the continuous sexual abuse count, it sentenced defendant to a concurrent 12-year term. This appeal followed.