People v. Ramirez-Ramos CA5

Filed 1/15/25 P. v. Ramirez-Ramos CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087336 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF361905B) v.

ROBERT RAMIREZ-RAMOS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge.

Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

*Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2019, a jury convicted defendant Robert Ramirez-Ramos of shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246; count 3) and found true allegations the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and that a principal personally discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subds. (c) & (e)(1)). Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4)(B). (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) On appeal, we reversed the gang enhancement and the firearm enhancement based on the passage of Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 333) and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the parties entered into stipulations based on the appellate opinions in defendant’s and his codefendants’ cases. A court trial was held and the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. Defendant was again sentenced to 15 years to life pursuant to section 186.22, subdivision (b)(4)(B). On appeal, counsel filed a Wende brief asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant. After reviewing the entire record and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On February 3, 2018, defendant and his three codefendants, Francisco Nava, Steven Lopez, and Ruben Perez, engaged in a confrontation at a convenience market gas station with E.D. and his girlfriend, C.A. E.D. was wearing a navy blue shirt and had a Los Angeles Dodgers decal on his car. The defendants yelled gang slurs at E.D., Lopez