People v. Rangel CA2/4

Filed 9/3/20 P. v. Rangel 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B303041

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No.NA100277)

v.

JOSE GERARDO RANGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James D. Otto, Judge. Affirmed. Christian C. Buckley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION In a bench trial, Jose Gerardo Rangel was convicted of perpetrating a lewd act upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)1); orally copulating a person under 14 years of age (former § 288a, subd. (c)(1)2); and orally copulating a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)). We affirmed the judgment, but found the trial court had improperly imposed a multiple victim sentence enhancement. (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e).) We therefore vacated defendant’s sentence and remanded the cause for resentencing. (See People v. Rangel (Aug. 24, 2017, B271735 [nonpub. opn.].) Following remand, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting that his waiver of his right to a jury trial was not knowing and intelligent, and that his trial counsel had been ineffective. The trial court denied the petition and resentenced defendant; defendant appealed. Defendant’s counsel filed a brief requesting that we independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We have conducted an independent examination of the entire record and conclude that no arguable issues exist. We therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As stated in our previous opinion, People v. Rangel, supra, B271735, “Defendant was charged by information with perpetrating a lewd act upon a child, G.R., with the intent of arousing, appealing to, and gratifying the lust, passions, and sexual desires of G.R. or himself (§ 288, subd. (a), count 1); orally