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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
4
