People v. Ramirez CA4/3

Filed 7/26/24 P. v. Ramirez CA4/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061275

v. (Super. Ct. No. 01WF2314)

RICHARD DAVID RAMIREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, James M. Toohey and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Two decades ago, a jury found defendant Richard David Ramirez guilty of first degree murder. Years after his conviction, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) ( SB 1437), which “narrowed or eliminated certain forms of accomplice liability for murder.” (People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 440 (Curiel).) Ramirez filed a petition for relief from his murder conviction under Penal Code section 1172.6, 1 alleging it was no longer valid following SB 1437’s passage. The trial court denied the petition, finding Ramirez had failed to state a prima facie case for relief. We disagree. Nothing in the record conclusively refutes the allegations in Ramirez’s petition. Thus, the trial court erred by denying his petition at the prima facie stage. The order is reversed and the matter is remanded. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. RAMIREZ’S TRIAL The following facts are provided for background purposes. They have been taken from this division’s unpublished opinion, People v. Ramirez, et al. (Jan. 18, 2006, G033858) [nonpub. opn.] (Ramirez I), which affirmed Ramirez’s murder conviction. Ramirez was a drug dealer and member of the Hawaiian Gardens gang, which was “‘at war’” with an Artesia gang. Seventeen-year-old Guillermo Carvajal went to Ramirez’s house to pay off a relative’s debt. Carvajal was from Artesia but was not in a gang. According to an eyewitness, codefendants Javen Anthony Cervantes and Stanley Dean Cruz were at