People v. Ramirez CA5

Filed 3/3/15 P. v. Ramirez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F067605 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11901432) v.

ELEAZAR RAMIREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Houry A. Sanderson, Judge. James Bisnow, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant, Eleazar Ramirez, was charged in an information filed on October 7, 2011, with two counts of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), counts 1 and 3) (undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 4), possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 12316, subd. (b)(1), count 5), and felony evasion of a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The information alleged that appellant used a gun in the commission of both carjacking counts (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)) and, as to count 1, appellant discharged a firearm during the commission of that offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)). Count 2 alleged that appellant personally used a gun while committing an assault with a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The information had special allegations that appellant had two prior serious felony convictions pursuant to the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)- (d)), qualified for a prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), and qualified for a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). At the conclusion of a jury trial on June 7, 2013, appellant was convicted of all six counts and the jury found true all of the gun enhancement allegations. In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant waived his right to a jury trial on the special allegations and admitted the prior serious felony convictions, the prior serious felony enhancement, and the prior prison term enhancement. On July 8, 2013, the trial court sentenced appellant to consecutive indeterminate sentences of 25 years to life for carjacking as alleged in counts 1 and 3. The court sentenced appellant to consecutive determinate sentences of 20 years for discharging a firearm in the commission of count 1 pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (c), a term of 10 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement on count 3,1 a