People v. Montemayor CA5

Filed 5/13/21 P. v. Montemayor 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080488 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F12906379) v.

JAIME LOU MONTEMAYOR, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather Mardel Jones, Judge. Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P.J., Smith, J. and Meehan, J.

Appointed counsel for appellant Jaime Lou Montemayor asked this Court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Montemayor was advised of her right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Montemayor, we affirm. BACKGROUND On August 23, 2012, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint against Montemayor alleging the following charges: forcible rape in concert (Pen. Code,1 § 264.1, subd. (a), counts 1 & 6), oral copulation by acting in concert with force (§ 288a, subd. (d), counts 2 & 5), sexual penetration by force (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(C), count 3). The complaint further alleged one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2), count 4), but that charge pertained solely to Montemayor’s codefendant. On June 12, 2014, following continuances not herein relevant, the trial court granted Montemayor’s request to represent herself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806. Sometime thereafter, Montemayor withdrew her request and retained private counsel. On October 1, 2014, following a preliminary examination hearing, Montemayor was held to answer on all counts alleged in the complaint. On September 24, 2015, the People filed an amended information charging Montemayor as follows: child abuse (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 1); and lewd acts upon a child 14 or 15 years old (§ 288, subd. (c)(1), counts 2-7). On this same date, Montemayor pled no contest to all counts pursuant to People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. Defense counsel stated counts “[t]wo through [s]even are based on an aiding and abetting theory and we admit that there was aiding and abetting.”