People v. Ramos CA6

Filed 11/10/21 P. v. Ramos CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H049047 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 20CR010152)

v.

NICHOLAS MARTIN RAMOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Nicholas Martin Ramos pleaded no contest to evading an officer while driving with willful disregard (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)),1 and misdemeanor possession of an injection or ingestion device (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)), and admitted that he had two prior strike convictions (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)).2 The trial court denied defendant’s Romero3 motion and sentenced defendant to 32 months in prison. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case but raises no issues. We

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 The parties later agreed that defendant only had one prior strike conviction. 3 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).

notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. We have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and determined that there are no arguable issues on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural history of the case. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background4 On November 26, 2020 at approximately 2:20 a.m., Monterey County Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Bradford contacted defendant to conduct a welfare check. Defendant’s vehicle was pulled over on the right shoulder of the road with its hazard lights blinking. Deputy Bradford was in uniform and his patrol vehicle was marked. Deputy Bradford noticed when he spoke to defendant that defendant had “his hand on the ignition as if maybe he was going to take off before [the deputy] contacted him.” After Deputy Bradford initially spoke to defendant, he learned that defendant had an outstanding felony warrant, was known to carry firearms, and was a known gang member. When Deputy Bradford asked defendant to exit his vehicle, defendant turned the vehicle on and sped off. Deputy Bradford pursued defendant, activating his patrol vehicle’s red lights and siren. Defendant ran a red light and “drove aggressively” in a residential neighborhood, speeding up and slowing down “multiple times.” Defendant’s speed fluctuated from 10 to 50 miles per hour; the speed limit in the neighborhood was 25 miles per hour. Deputy Bradford was concerned for people’s safety and property based on defendant’s driving.