People v. Alhambra CA1/5

Filed 6/1/21 P. v. Alhambra CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A160190 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-150862-1) CECIL A. ALHAMBRA, Defendant and Appellant.

Cecil A. Alhambra (appellant) appeals following his second resentencing on convictions for various sexual offenses. We reject appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to permit interposition of a motion for new trial before the second resentencing. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged with 37 sexual offenses against two victims, including multiple counts of committing a forcible lewd act on a child (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (b)(1)).1 He was convicted on 26 of those counts (counts 6–

1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

30 and 37). In February 2016, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 138 years and 8 months, plus 340 years to life. Appellant filed his first appeal, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support some of his convictions and that the trial court had committed several sentencing errors. (People v. Alhambra (Mar. 14, 2017, A147665) [nonpub. opn.] (Alhambra I) at p. 1.) This court concluded that one of appellant’s convictions (count 27) must be reversed, and that the trial court made sentencing errors that affected appellant’s 10 lewd act convictions (counts 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20, and 28–30). (Id. at p. 3.) First, we determined that the trial court erred in imposing both determinate and indeterminate sentences under section 667.61 on all of the lewd act convictions. (Ibid.) We directed that “[o]n remand, the trial court should strike the determinate portions of appellant’s sentences for each count subject to sentencing under section 667.61.” (Ibid.) Second, we determined that the trial court erred in imposing terms of 25 years to life for three of these lewd act convictions (counts 28–30) because, at the time those crimes were committed, the maximum sentence was 15 years to life. (Ibid.) We remanded for resentencing on these three counts. (Ibid.) The disposition read as follows: “The conviction on count 27 is reversed and the matter is remanded for resentencing in accordance with this decision.” (Id. at p. 4.) Appellant was resentenced in June 2017. On seven of his lewd act convictions (counts 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 20), the trial court imposed terms of 25 years to life. On his remaining three lewd act convictions (counts 28– 30), the trial court imposed terms of 15 years to life. Appellant then filed his second appeal, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to be present at the resentencing hearing and that it proceeded in his absence. (People v. Alhambra (Mar. 15, 2019, A152999)