People v. Ayala CA6

Filed 11/9/26 P. v. Ayala CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H054254 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 23CR000219) v. JAIME TIRSO AYALA, JR., Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Jaime Tirso Ayala, Jr., of one count of annoying or molesting a child while having sustained a prior sex crime conviction. After granting Ayala’s motion to dismiss one of his two prior strike convictions, the court sentenced Ayala to 12 years in prison: the upper term of six years, doubled for Ayala’s remaining prior strike. In Ayala’s initial appeal, this court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for resentencing, concluding that the sentencing court violated Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(2)1 by considering an aggravating circumstance not proven at trial in imposing Ayala’s sentence. (People v. Ayala (Dec. 23, 2025, H051894) [nonpub. opn.].) Upon remand, the trial court imposed the same sentence. On appeal, Ayala’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts but raises no issues. 1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. This court notified Ayala of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed, and we have received no response from Ayala. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and have determined that there are no arguable issues on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to Ayala. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 The prosecution charged Ayala with 10 counts of various offenses after a group of girls disclosed that Ayala made comments and engaged in actions toward them that made them feel uncomfortable. The alleged actions took place at the church the girls attended. Ayala lived at the church and operated the church’s audio system. A jury convicted Ayala of a single count of annoying or molesting a child by squeezing and rubbing a girl’s thigh while having sustained a prior sex crime conviction (§ 647.6, subd. (c)(2)). The jury acquitted Ayala on two counts and could not reach a verdict on the remaining counts. The trial court then found Ayala had sustained two prior strike convictions, and it found three aggravating circumstances true. At sentencing, the court granted Ayala’s request to dismiss one of his two prior strike convictions, and it sentenced Ayala to the upper term of six years, doubled due to the prior strike. This court then reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new sentencing hearing, concluding that the sentencing court relied on a vulnerable victim aggravating circumstance that the court did not find true beyond a reasonable doubt. Upon remand, the prosecution argued that a 12-year sentence remained appropriate. The resentencing court noted it had dismissed one of Ayala’s two prior strike convictions, and it concluded based on the three aggravating circumstances found 2 Portions of this background are taken from this court’s prior opinion. That opinion is contained in the appellate record for the instant matter and this court granted Ayala’s request for judicial notice of the record in Ayala’s previous appeal. 2 true beyond a reasonable doubt that the appropriate sentence was the same as that originally imposed: the upper term of six years, doubled to 12 years for the prior strike. This appeal timely followed. II. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, we have carefully reviewed the entire record. We conclude there is no arguable issue on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to Ayala. (Wende, supra, at pp. 441-443.) III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 3  _______________________________ Greenwood, P. J. WE CONCUR: ___________________________________________ Danner, J. ______________________________________ Adams, J. H054254 People v. Ayala