People v. Padilla CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 9/21/26 P. v. Padilla CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B347285

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA433302 v.

RAYMOND PADILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed. Olivia Meme, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ After reviewing this appeal pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), we affirm. Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code. This is Raymond Padilla’s second appeal. In his first, we affirmed the trial court’s decision to sentence him to six consecutive 15-years-to-life sentences after a jury found him guilty of six felonies involving various lewd acts with four different minor girls, including his niece and three of his daughter’s friends. (People v. Padilla (Feb. 14, 2018, B280925) [nonpub. opn.].) The court imposed but stayed four one-year sentence enhancements under section 667.5(b). (Id.) Padilla’s total sentence was 90 years to life. (Id.) In 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §§ 1, 3), which retroactively invalidated prior prison or jail sentence enhancements under section 667.5(b), aside from sexually violent offenses. (See People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1058.) Through newly enacted section 1172.75, defendants with section 667.5(b) enhancements could seek resentencing, even if the sentencing courts stayed the enhancements. (Id. at p. 1054–1055.) Padilla, through counsel, filed a motion for resentencing under section 1172.75 in September 2024. He asked the trial court to re-sentence him to 15 years to life on one count and impose but stay his sentences on the remaining counts. In support of his request, Padilla highlighted his efforts to rehabilitate himself while incarcerated, which included completing numerous self-help and education courses, maintaining steady employment, and good behavior. The prosecutor opposed any reduction in Padilla’s sentence. While commending Padilla for his educational pursuits, job performance, and lack of rules violations in custody, the prosecutor also pointed out he had “not engaged in any programs geared towards the one issue that matters: his compulsion to sexually assault children and pre-teen girls.”

2 The court re-sentenced Padilla to a total of 60 years to life, imposing four consecutive fifteen-year sentences pursuant to section 667.61 for each of the four victims. It struck the prior prison enhancements and imposed concurrent sentences for the two remaining counts, citing Padilla's post-conviction conduct, which it deemed worthy of accounting for at resentencing. Padilla timely appealed. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231–232. Counsel found no arguable issues to raise on appeal. Padilla then filed a supplemental brief. Under Delgadillo, we must evaluate the arguments he raised in his brief and issue a written opinion. (Id. at p. 232.) In his supplemental brief, Padilla makes four arguments: (1) his sentence is contrary to two cases the Supreme Court decided after his sentencing: People v. Shaw (2025) 18 Cal.5th 1089 (Shaw) and People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069 (Wiley); (2) his in-laws wrongfully accused him; (3) as a Latino, he received a harsher punishment than white inmates, in violation of the Racial Justice Act; and (4) the 60 years to life sentence is cruel and unusual punishment, given that he never raped or killed anyone. Padilla’s claims are baseless. Neither Shaw nor Wiley are relevant to this case. Shaw concerned how to count the number of strikes when a single criminal act has resulted in multiple prior felony convictions. (Shaw, supra, 18 Cal.5th at p. 1093.) Wiley determined it was a constitutional violation for a trial court to adjudicate underlying facts related to a defendant’s earlier convictions and rely on those facts to impose an upper term limit. (Wiley, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1076.)

3 Padilla fails to point to any evidence in the record to support his claims against his in-laws or that his sentence had anything to do with his race. His representation of himself does not relieve him of the obligation to provide record citations or reasoned argument. (See L.O. v. Kilrain (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 616, 620.) As for Padilla’s claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, he forfeited this claim by not raising it in the trial court. (See People v. Speight (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247 [“A defendant’s failure to contemporaneously object that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forfeits the claim on appellate review”].) We decline a request by Padilla’s appellate counsel to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Nothing before us suggests an exercise of independent review is necessary. DISPOSITION We affirm the judgment.

WILEY, ACTING P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J. SCHERB, J.