People v. Ramirez CA4/1

Filed 10/30/25 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085063

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD302492)

JOSE ROCHA RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua Peter Visco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Tyler L. Krentz, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jose Rocha Ramirez appeals the order suspending imposition of sentence and granting him probation for three years after a jury found him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no claims of error and invited us to review the record

independently for error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We solicited briefing from the parties on whether the trial court erred by imposing a probation term longer than two years. The parties agree the court did not err. We affirm. BACKGROUND Ramirez lived in a house with several others, including his son, his son’s fiancée, and their two children. One morning, Ramirez got upset, went outside, and started “yelling stuff” about his son’s family. The son went out to try to placate his father. Ramirez retrieved a small axe from behind a trash can, swung it, and threatened to hit his son in the head with it. The son tried to take the axe away from Ramirez. The two men fell to the ground and struggled. The son’s fiancée observed the struggle from inside the house and called the police. The son kept Ramirez on the ground until police arrived and arrested him. The People charged Ramirez with assault with a deadly weapon on his son (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and alleged the assault was a serious felony based on his personal use of a dangerous and deadly weapon in the assault (id., § 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)). The jury found Ramirez guilty of the charge and found the allegation true. The finding on the personal use of a deadly weapon made him presumptively ineligible for probation. (Id., § 1203, subd. (e)(2).) Ramirez’s counsel nevertheless argued, and the trial court found, that Ramirez’s age, limited criminal history, and willingness to comply with reasonable conditions of probation made for an “unusual case[ ] in which the interests of justice would best be served” by granting probation. (Ibid.; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.413(c)(1)(A), (2)(C).) The court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Ramirez on probation for three years, and