People v. Ramirez CA4/1

Filed 2/25/26 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084653

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD138947)

RAUL ENRIQUE RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John M. Thompson, Judge. Reversed. Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski, Seth M. Friedman and Juliet W. Part, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A. Factual and Procedural Background

Early one morning in August 1998, defendant Raul Enrique Ramirez

and another man were observed walking away from a burning taxicab.1 Ramirez’s hand was wrapped in a bloody cloth. After the fire was put out, a severely burned corpse was found inside the remains of the vehicle. The victim—the taxi driver—had been shot seven times, and was apparently dead before the fire began. Ramirez was arrested at a hospital later that same day after he sought treatment for burns on various parts of his body. Following a jury trial, Ramirez was convicted of first degree murder

(Pen. Code,2 §§ 187, subd. (a) & 189), first degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5), and arson (§ 451, subd. (d)). But the jurors found not true a special circumstance allegation that he committed the murder in the course of the robbery. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) In 2020, Ramirez filed a petition for resentencing under then-section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), asserting that he had been found guilty of murder based on a now-invalid theory and could no longer be convicted due to recent statutory changes. The superior court denied the petition at the prima facie stage without an evidentiary hearing, concluding there was “sufficient evidence to establish Petitioner acted with premeditation and deliberation when he committed the murder.” This court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (Ramirez, supra, D034781.)