People v. Ram CA1/2

Filed 8/31/16 P. v. Ram CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143509 v. PRAVEEN RAM, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 173219) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Praveen Ram appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for certificate of rehabilitation and pardon pursuant to Penal Code section 4852.01.1 The Attorney General concedes the trial court erred in finding Ram statutorily ineligible for the relief sought. We accept the Attorney General’s concession. We reverse the denial order and remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether to grant Ram’s petition. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Sacramento Criminal Case In 2000, the Sacramento County District Attorney filed a second amended information charging Ram with two counts of sexual battery with restraint (counts 1 and 3, § 243.4, subd. (a)); two counts of rape (counts 2 and 5, § 261, subd. (a)(2)); two counts of sexual penetration (counts 4 and 7, § 289, subd. (a)); one count of sodomy (count 6,

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

§ 286, subd. (c)(2)); and one count of assault with intent to commit oral copulation (count 8, § 220).2 In March 2001, a jury found Ram guilty of counts 3, 5, and 6 (sexual battery, rape, and sodomy, respectively), and not guilty of the remaining charges. Ram filed a motion for a new trial. In December 2001, the parties reached a negotiated disposition under which the prosecutor stipulated to a new trial as to counts 5 and 6 (rape and sodomy, respectively), and Ram agreed to withdraw his motion for new trial as to count 3 (sexual battery) and waive his right to appeal. The trial court approved the parties’ agreement, and granted the motion for new trial as to counts 5 and 6. As to count 3, imposition of sentence was suspended, and Ram was placed on formal probation for five years. In March 2009, the trial court granted Ram’s motion to set aside the guilty verdict and dismiss the accusatory pleading pursuant to section 1203.4. The order incorrectly states that Ram was granted five years probation upon conviction of sections 243.4, subdivision (a), 261, subdivision (a)(2), and 286, subdivision (c)(2). In fact, Ram had no conviction for the latter two offenses because the trial court ordered a new trial for counts 5 and 6. (§ 1180 [“The granting of a new trial places the parties in the same position as if no trial had been had.”].) Current Petition On January 28, 2014, Ram filed a petition for certificate for rehabilitation pursuant to section 4852.01 in the Alameda County Superior Court. On October 22, 2014, the trial court denied the petition without prejudice on the ground Ram was “not eligible to seek this relief under the statute.” The trial court stated that a certificate of rehabilitation under section 4852.01 was unavailable to a person who has been convicted of violation of