People v. Ramirez CA3

Filed 12/7/20 P. v. Ramirez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C087024

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF17-5804)

v.

STEPHON JEROME RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of numerous crimes, including attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle. The trial court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of 13 years 8 months in state prison. On appeal, defendant raises three contentions: (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict him of attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle; (2) the matter should be remanded to determine his ability to pay fines and fees; and (3) the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected. We agree the abstract of judgment requires correction. Defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit.

1

However, we must modify the judgment to address some clerical and sentencing errors. The judgment is affirmed as modified. BACKGROUND The People charged defendant with numerous criminal offenses including attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/246.)1 The People further alleged defendant committed these crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). A jury found defendant guilty on several charges, including attempted shooting into an occupied vehicle. The jury also found true the gang enhancement allegations, as well as the firearm use enhancement. The trial court subsequently sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of 13 years 8 months in state prison. The court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees, including “a court operations assessment of $40 for each count pursuant to . . . [s]ection 1465.8. The $40 for Count 1 is stayed pursuant to . . . [s]ection 654.” The court also ordered defendant to pay “a criminal conviction assessment of $30 for each count pursuant to Government Code [s]ection 70373[, subdivision] (a)(1). The $30 for Count 1 is stayed pursuant to . . . [s]ection 654.” DISCUSSION I Sufficiency of the Evidence Defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to convict him of attempted shooting at an occupied vehicle. In support of his contention, defendant argues the People failed to prove he had the present ability to injure someone when he attempted to