People v. Ruffin CA5

Filed 5/2/25 P. v. Ruffin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F088531 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F18907841) v.

NATHANIEL RUFFIN, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. William Terrence, Judge. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2024, appellant Nathaniel Ruffin, Jr. entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1). He admitted that he had suffered a prior strike conviction. The parties stipulated that, if the court were to review the police reports and the preliminary hearing transcript, it would find a sufficient factual basis for the plea. In exchange for the plea agreement, the prosecutor dismissed three other pending charges.1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, appellant was sentenced to prison for four years. Following his 2024 sentencing, appellant appealed to this court. His counsel has filed a Wende2 brief. After reviewing the entire record, we affirm. BACKGROUND According to the probation report, a deputy sheriff observed appellant on November 15, 2018, driving an allegedly stolen vehicle. The deputy attempted to initiate a traffic stop, but appellant failed to yield and led the deputy on a pursuit. Appellant eventually crashed the vehicle and was taken into custody after running a short distance on foot. Appellant’s prior strike conviction occurred in 1996. He was sentenced to prison for voluntary manslaughter in violation of Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a). At the sentencing hearing in this matter, appellant brought a Romero motion,3 contending his prior strike conviction was too remote. The sentencing court denied the Romero motion, finding that appellant’s prior behavior was “very similar” to the charge in this matter. According to the court, appellant’s prior conviction involved a death that occurred when