People v. Ramirez CA5

Filed 6/20/22 P. v. Ramirez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F082936 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13908905) v.

CARLOS RAMIREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan M. Skiles, Judge. Charles M. Bonneau, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

In a prior opinion (People v. Ramirez (Nov. 3, 2020, F077884) [nonpub. opn.]; (F077884)), this court partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment of conviction against Carlos Ramirez (defendant). The cause was remanded for reconsideration of a motion for new trial and, contingent upon the motion ruling, resentencing. This appeal is taken from the judgment entered on remand. Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claims of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no arguable errors that could result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We incorporate by reference the factual and procedural background set forth in F077884. To briefly recapitulate, a jury found defendant guilty of raping several prostitutes. He lured his victims to secluded areas under the pretext of an arm’s-length transaction for sex, then falsely identified himself as a police officer and/or threatened them with a stun gun. The victims had been willing to engage in protected sexual activity for money, but defendant coerced and/or physically forced them to have sex with him without a condom. Defendant was convicted of rape by force or fear (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 1, 9, 13 & 16); oral copulation by force or fear (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A); counts 2 & 10); felony false imprisonment as a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping (§§ 209, subd. (b)(1), 236, 237, subd. (b); counts 8, 12 & 15); and falsely identifying oneself to a police officer (§ 148.9; count 19). True findings were made on four weapon enhancement allegations (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) True findings were also made on a multiple-victim allegation pursuant to section 667.61, subdivision (e)(4), which is part of a sentencing scheme known as the “One Strike” law. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Due to the multiple-victim findings, defendant was sentenced to six consecutive prison terms of 15 years to life (counts 1, 2, 9, 10, 13 & 16). Three additional one-year