People v. Ramos CA2/5

Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Ramos CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B256215

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA117053) v.

GAVINO CIRILO RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John A. Torribio, Judge. Affirmed. A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson and Idan Ivri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Gavino Cirilo Ramos, appeals from the sentence imposed on remand from a prior appeal. We previously affirmed with minor modifications defendant’s second degree murder conviction. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).) 1 In addition, the jury and the trial court found various special enhancement allegations to be true. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C), 667, subds. (a)(1) & (b)-(i), 667.5, subd. (b), 1170.12, 12022.53, subd. (d).) We remanded to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion in connection with a prior prison term enhancement and a serious conviction sentence. (People v. Ramos (Nov. 22, 2013, B244221 [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike his prior convictions alleged under Penal Code sections 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and 1170.12. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion. The information alleges defendant had been convicted in 1994 of two attempted murder counts (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and one robbery count. (§ 211.) The trial court had discretion to strike one or more of those prior conviction allegations. (§ 1385, subd. (a); People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 568; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 529-530.) In ruling on a motion to strike a prior conviction, a trial court considers certain well-established factors: “[T]he court in question must consider whether, in light of the nature and circumstances of [the defendant’s] present felonies and prior serious and/or violent felony convictions, and the particulars of his background, character, and prospects, the defendant may be deemed outside the scheme’s spirit, in whole or in part, and hence should be treated as though he had not previously been convicted of one or more serious and/or violent felonies.” (People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161; accord, In re Large (2007) 41 Cal.4th 538, 552.) Our review is for an abuse of discretion. (People v. Clancey, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 581; People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373.) An abuse of discretion occurs only if the trial court’s ruling is “so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with [the trial court’s ruling].” (People v. Carmony, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 377; see People v. Blocker (2010)