People v. Ramos CA2/1

Filed 5/30/25 P. v. Ramos CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B337505

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA274391) v.

SERRATO JOSE RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________________

In 2005, a jury convicted Serrato Jose Ramos of three counts of willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder after he and a co-perpetrator fired multiple gunshots into an occupied vehicle. In addition, the jury found true Ramos had personally discharged a handgun during the attempts and had committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced Ramos to 50 years to life in prison. We affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. (People v. Ramos et al. (Mar. 21, 2007, B189663) [nonpub. opn.] (Ramos I).) Almost two decades later, Ramos filed a petition pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.61 challenging his convictions. That section permits defendants convicted under certain recently invalidated theories of homicide—including “attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine”—to seek resentencing. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) After appointing counsel for Ramos, soliciting briefing, and holding a hearing, the trial court concluded Ramos had failed to make a prima facie case for relief and denied his petition. Ramos now asks us to reverse, arguing the court improperly relied on the factual summary in Ramos I to deny the petition. We conclude, however, Ramos forfeited this argument by failing to raise it below. We further conclude the argument fails on its merits: The record does not support Ramos’s contention the court “relied almost exclusively on” Ramos I’s factual summary in evaluating his petition. And even assuming for purposes of argument the court did so, Ramos fails to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.