People v. Ramirez CA2/4

Filed 1/28/25 P. v. Ramirez CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B334433

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA102395 v.

DANIEL RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. G. Martin Velez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Because the issue presented in this appeal is narrow and straightforward, and because we are not publishing this opinion, we resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (See Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We reject defendant and appellant Daniel Josue Ramirez’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by not reducing his sentence.1

BACKGROUND

In 2015, a jury convicted Ramirez of second degree murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187, subd. (a)), found a gang allegation true (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and found various firearm use allegations true, including that Ramirez personally used a handgun in the commission of the murder, causing great bodily injury and death to the victim. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced Ramirez to 40 years to life in state prison, consisting of 15 years to life on the murder count, plus a 25-years-to-life firearm enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)3 On direct appeal, a different panel of this court remanded the matter for a Franklin hearing,4 and for the trial court to exercise its newfound discretion under section 12022.53,

1 Ramirez’s counsel raised this argument in the opening brief but did not file a reply brief. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 The court struck the gang enhancement. 4 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261.