People v. Ramos CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085981 · 2026-01-30 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB22002510
Trial judge: J. David Mazurek
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Truc T. Do (author), Laurence D. Rubin, William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:31Z · confidence low

The trial court revoked Ramos's probation for a hit-and-run offense and sentenced him to the upper term of three years based on his criminal history and probation violations. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review under Wende and Anders, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding of probation violation “Based on Ramos’s admissions at trial, the trial court found Ramos’s possession of a controlled substance established a probation violation.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders but did not explicitly analyze the merits of the probation violation finding, stating it found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal.
Sentencing to upper term “The trial court sentenced Ramos to the upper term of three years for the hit and run resulting in injury due to his “lengthy criminal history dating back to 2006””	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing but did not provide specific reasoning for affirming the sentence, relying instead on the conclusion that no arguable issues were found.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying potential issues and the court to independently review the record when no issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief stating no grounds for reversal while the court independently reviews the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is a memorandum decision that relies on the Wende/Anders procedure. It identifies the issues raised by counsel but does not provide substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why those issues fail, merely stating that no reasonably arguable issues were found after independent review.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The San Bernardino Superior Court found Ramos violated probation by possessing a controlled substance (based on his own trial testimony after a jury acquitted him of possession for sale) and sentenced him to the upper term of three years for felony hit and run causing injury, citing his lengthy criminal history and the conduct underlying the probation violation. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Ramos filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal conducted an independent review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed in a memorandum opinion.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Finding that Ramos violated probation by possessing a controlled substance without a prescription “Based on Ramos’s admissions at trial, the trial court found Ramos’s possession of a controlled substance established a probation violation.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A probation violation need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, and an acquittal on the possession-for-sale charge does not preclude a violation finding based on the lesser conduct of simple possession. Ramos testified under oath that he possessed ten Hydrocodone pills bought off the street, which directly established a violation of the no-controlled-substances condition. The court did not articulate a standard of review beyond listing counsel's framing, but the result is clearly supportable.
Imposition of the upper term of three years for hit and run causing injury after revocation of probation “whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing Ramos to the upper term for hit and run driving resulting in injury.”	abuse of discretion	correct (law misapplied)	disagree with court The trial court expressly relied in part on 'the conduct that he was engaged in with respect to the probation violation' to select the upper term. California Rules of Court, rule 4.435(b)(1) provides that when imposition of sentence was suspended, the length of the sentence on revocation must be based on circumstances existing when probation was granted and subsequent events may not be considered in selecting the term; appellate courts have reversed on this ground (People v. Goldberg; People v. Harris). Additionally, under Penal Code section 1170(b)(2)-(3) as amended by Senate Bill 567, aggravating facts other than prior convictions shown by certified records must be stipulated to or found true beyond a reasonable doubt, and the opinion does not indicate the criminal-history factor was proved by certified records. The criminal-history factor might independently sustain the upper term and render any error harmless under People v. Lynch, but that is an arguable issue a Wende review should have identified and addressed rather than summarily dismissed. The opinion also does not state whether imposition or execution of sentence was suspended, which affects the analysis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record to determine whether any arguable issues exist.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Goldberg (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 1160 — When sentencing after revocation of probation where imposition of sentence was suspended, the court may not rely on the defendant's conduct after the grant of probation to select the term; the sentence must rest on circumstances existing when probation was granted (rule 4.435(b)(1)).
missed: People v. Harris (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 141 — Reliance on post-probation conduct, including the conduct constituting the probation violation, to impose an aggravated term after revocation violates the Rules of Court and requires resentencing unless harmless.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion properly follows the Wende/Anders procedure and the probation-violation finding is unassailable given Ramos's sworn admission of possession. However, the trial court's express reliance on the probation-violation conduct to select the upper term raises an arguable issue under rule 4.435(b)(1) and Penal Code section 1170(b) that the opinion does not mention, even if the criminal-history factor might ultimately render any error harmless.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Ramos 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, D085981

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB22002510)

CHARLES GILBERT RAMOS, JR., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, J. David Mazurek, Judge. Affirmed.

Alexander Amar Kannan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Charles Gilbert Ramos, Jr. appeals from a judgment sentencing him following the revocation of probation. His appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We notified Ramos of his right to file a supplemental brief, and he has not done so. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment. In a felony complaint filed August 17, 2022, the People charged Ramos with one count of felony hit and run driving resulting in injury to another person (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (b)(1)). On June 26, 2023, Ramos pled no contest to that count in exchange for being placed on probation for two years. One condition of probation was that Ramos could not use or possess controlled substances without a prescription from a medical professional. On April 1, 2024, Ramos was arrested for petty theft. (Pen. Code, § 484.) In July 2024, he failed to report in person to the Probation Department as required. On September 5, 2024, Ramos was arrested after San Bernardino police discovered controlled substances, a large amount of cash, and a scale while searching his car during a traffic stop. He was arrested for possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Based on these incidents, the People filed a petition for revocation of probation on September 10, 2024. The petition included Ramos’s extensive criminal history beginning in 2006. Ramos proceeded to jury trial on the possession for sale charge. He testified about the September 5, 2024 incident, stating: he was addicted to Hydrocodone at that time; he was in possession of 10 Hydrocodone pills; and he bought those pills off the street for personal use. The jury found him not guilty of possession for sale of controlled substances. The trial court then held a hearing on the petition for revocation of probation. Based on Ramos’s admissions at trial, the trial court found Ramos’s possession of a controlled substance established a probation violation. The trial court sentenced Ramos to the upper term of three years for the hit and run resulting in injury due to his “lengthy criminal history 2 dating back to 2006” involving “many” convictions and “the conduct that he was engaged in with respect to the probation violation.” Ramos’s appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and statement of facts, urging no grounds for reversal of the judgment, and asking this court to independently review the record for error. Counsel identifies the following issues to assist the court in its review: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Ramos violated probation, and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing Ramos to the upper term for hit and run driving resulting in injury. We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ramos on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

DO, J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12