People v. Ramirez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BA1500267
- Trial judge
- Joshlyn Pulliam
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, William S. Dato
Analysis
The trial court denied Ramirez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was ineligible because he was not convicted of a homicide-related offense. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Ramirez lacked eligibility for relief under the statute.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.“The court concluded Ramirez had not been convicted of any offense which would be eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court therefore denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, reasoning that Ramirez was not convicted of any homicide-related offense, which is a prerequisite for eligibility under section 1172.6. The court rejected the argument that joint trial instructions for a codefendant's murder conviction conferred eligibility on Ramirez for his non-homicide convictions. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief identifying no meritorious issues and requesting independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when counsel files a Wende brief.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and to request leave to withdraw.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo/Wende framework for independent review. It correctly identifies that eligibility for section 1172.6 relief requires a conviction for a homicide-related offense, which Ramirez did not have.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Ricardo Ramirez's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, because his 2018 convictions (dissuading a witness, active gang participation, felon in possession of a firearm) are not homicide offenses covered by the statute. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Ramirez filed a supplemental brief arguing that homicide instructions given at his joint trial with a murder codefendant made him eligible, and the Fourth District, Division One independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the ground that petitioner was not convicted of any offense eligible for relief“The court concluded Ramirez had not been convicted of any offense which would be eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court therefore denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 by its terms applies only to persons convicted of murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter under a now-invalid imputed-malice theory. Ramirez was convicted only of dissuading a witness, gang participation, and firearm possession; none of these can be the subject of a 1172.6 petition regardless of what instructions were given to the jury for a codefendant's murder count. Ineligibility was apparent from the record of conviction, so denial at the prima facie stage without an OSC was proper. The appellate court did not articulate a standard of review, but statutory eligibility is a legal question and the result is the same under any standard. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition, Wende independent review is not constitutionally required, but the Court of Appeal must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may exercise discretion to independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Framework for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on a first appeal of right.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may deny relief without an order to show cause only where the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law; the court did not cite this controlling framework, though the omission does not affect the result because the convictions themselves establish ineligibility.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is plainly correct: section 1172.6 reaches only murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter convictions, and Ramirez has none, so the trial court properly denied the petition without an OSC and the Delgadillo review procedure was correctly followed. The opinion, however, never quotes or cites the statutory text or the Lewis prima-facie framework to explain why the joint-trial homicide instructions are irrelevant, and it contains apparent clerical slips (citing section 2980 rather than 29800 and a Riverside caption with a BA-prefixed case number) that go unaddressed.
Opinion
Filed 11/21/24 P. v. Ramirez CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D084044
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. BA1500267)
RICARDO JESUS RAMIREZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Ricardo Jesus Ramirez, in pro. per.; and James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2018, a jury convicted Ricardo Jesus Ramirez of dissuading a witness (Pen. Code,1 § 136.1, subd. (b)(1)), participating in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 2980, subd. (a)(1)).
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. The court found true a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)). Ramirez was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 14 years plus a consecutive term of five years for the serious felony prior. In 2024, Ramirez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, even though Ramirez was not convicted of any homicide related offense. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court concluded Ramirez had not been convicted of any offense which would be eligible for relief under section 1172.6. The court therefore denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error as we would do if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Ramirez he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. Ramirez does not address the fact he was not convicted of any homicide offense that would make him eligible for relief under section 1172.6. Ramirez was tried together with a codefendant who was convicted of murder. Essentially Ramirez argues that since homicide instructions were given to the jury in the joint trial, he should be eligible for resentencing of his nonhomicide convictions. Ramirez has not raised any potentially meritorious issues relevant to the order on which this appeal is based.
2 DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for resentencing without issuing an order to show cause and holding an evidentiary hearing. We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ramirez on this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Ramirez’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
DATO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12