People v. Ramos CA3

Filed 11/30/20 P. v. Ramos CA3 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C086317

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF15078)

v.

JOHN RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Ramos asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After we issued our original decision in this appeal, we granted rehearing and requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing changes in the law. Having reviewed the record and the supplemental briefs, we will remand the matter to permit the trial court to determine whether defendant is eligible for pretrial mental

1

health diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.36,1 which became effective June 27, 2018 (Stats. 2018, ch. 34, § 24). I Defendant entered the victim’s house in 2015 with the intent to commit theft. The victim contacted law enforcement and defendant was apprehended. Defendant refused to cooperate and fought with the officers, ramming a shopping cart into one of the officers while trying to get away. A criminal complaint charged defendant with first degree burglary (§ 459 -- count I) and resisting arrest with force or violence (§ 69 -- count II), both felonies. The complaint further alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction for making criminal threats. Based on two separate mental evaluations of defendant’s competency, the trial court declared defendant incompetent to stand trial and committed him to Napa State Hospital. The trial court subsequently received a certification of defendant’s mental competency pursuant to section 1372 and reinstated criminal proceedings. Defendant pleaded no contest to both counts in exchange for his presentence release on his own recognizance pursuant to a Cruz waiver.2 He agreed that if he violated the conditions of his Cruz waiver, he would be allowed to withdraw his plea to count II and his plea to count I would become a “straight up” plea, meaning he would be exposed to 2, 4, or 6 years in state prison. The parties stipulated to a factual basis for defendant’s plea. Defendant failed to appear for sentencing. The trial court was informed defendant was in custody in Madera County and had committed two new misdemeanors in Yuba