People v. Ramon CA5

California Court of Appeal Apr 15, 2016 No. F069550Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the jury instructions by expressly agreeing to them, and that any potential error was harmless because the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and the instruction actually benefited the defendant.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that a mistake of fact defense required a reasonable belief.
Whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's failure to object to the jury instructions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Ramon expressly agreed through defense counsel to the language used by the court in charging the jury with CALCRIM No. 3406. By doing so, Ramon forfeited his claim that the court erred when it instructed the jury that his mistake of fact had to be reasonable.”

“We conclude the record does not contain any evidence from which it can be inferred that prior to engaging in intercourse with R.S., Ramon actually believed, whether reasonably or not, that R.S. was conscious when he began having intercourse with her.”

Filed 4/15/16 P. v. Ramon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F069550 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF150575A) v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW RAMON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John S. Somers, Judge. Paul V. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

On April 30, 2014, a jury convicted appellant Christopher Andrew Ramon of rape of a person unconscious of the nature of the act (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(4)). On June 4, 2014, the court sentenced Ramon to prison for the middle term of six years. On appeal, Ramon contends: (1) the court committed instructional error; and (2) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm. FACTS The Trial Evidence R.S. testified that in August 2013, she shared a bedroom with her boyfriend Matthew M. in a house with two other roommates. She was acquainted with Ramon through Matthew M. R.S. never had a romantic relationship with Ramon. On August 31, 2013, sometime before 1:00 a.m., Matthew M. called Ramon and they decided to “hang out.”1 R.S. drove Matthew M. to pick up Ramon and on the way back, they stopped and bought a bottle of vodka. The trio then went outside, listened to music, and began drinking. However, R.S. became sick and at approximately 2:00 a.m., she went to bed in her room. R.S. took a generic version of a Tylenol PM pill. Ramon and Matthew M. remained outside. R.S. testified that at 4:00 a.m., she awoke to heavy breathing and somebody having sexual intercourse with her. When she first woke up, she thought her boyfriend Matthew M. was on top of her and she said his name. When there was no response, she realized Ramon was on top of her. R.S. said Ramon’s name and he replied, “Yes.” She nudged his face and he immediately got off her. Fifteen to 20 seconds passed from the time she woke up and realized someone was having intercourse with her until she realized it was Ramon. She did not know how long he had been having sex with her because she was asleep. R.S.’s roommate called the Sheriff’s Department.

People v. Ramon CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief