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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

GUADALUPE MOLINA RAMOS, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 B248546 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. TA111850) 

 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. 
2 

 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. 

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asked this court 

to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. 

Counsel submitted a declaration stating he had advised defendant of the nature of the 

brief that would be filed. 

 On August 27, 2013, we sent a letter to defendant advising him that he had 30 

days within which to file a supplemental brief raising any issues he wished for us to 

consider. To date, we have received no response. 
3 

We have independently reviewed the record. We are satisfied that no arguable 

issues exist and that defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende 

procedure and our independent review of the record, received effective appellate review 

of the judgment entered against him. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-279; 

People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.) 

DISPOSITION 

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

 SUZUKAWA, J. 

We concur: 

 EPSTEIN, P. J. 

 MANELLA, J.