1

Filed 8/20/15 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMIE LEE RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

C077444

(Super. Ct. No. CRF14-325)

Appointed counsel for defendant Jamie Lee Ramirez has asked this court to review 

the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a 

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
2

Defendant was charged by criminal complaint with sexual penetration of a child 

under the age of 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)—count 1),1 attempt to engage in oral 

copulation of a child under the age of 10 (§§ 664/288.7, subd. (b)—count 2), and lewd act 

on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)—count 3). 

By negotiated plea agreement, count 1 of the complaint was amended to allege a 

lewd act on a child under the age of 14 by use of force or fear (§ 288, subd. (b)(1)).

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to forcible lewd or lascivious act 

on a child under the age of 14 (amended count 1) and attempted oral copulation of a child 

under the age of 11 (count 2) in exchange for a stipulated state prison sentence of 17 

years; dismissal with a Harvey2 waiver of count 3; forfeiture of all electronic devices, 

guns, and ammunition seized by law enforcement; and the People’s agreement not to 

pursue additional charges against defendant for possession of illegal guns or ammunition 

or child pornography in the event of discovery of such material on the seized electronic 

devices.

The factual basis to substantiate the negotiated plea is as follows: During May 

2014, defendant (born in 1969) committed sexual crimes against a six-year-old neighbor 

and friend of defendant’s children who frequented defendant’s residence. On one 

occasion, defendant penetrated the victim’s vagina with his finger against the victim’s 

will and by use of force or fear. On a separate occasion, defendant asked the victim to 

orally copulate him.

Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his plea. The trial court conducted a hearing 

on defendant’s motion, during which several witnesses testified, including defendant. At 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3

the conclusion of the hearing, the court found defendant’s testimony was not credible and 

denied the motion.

The court sentenced defendant to 17 years in state prison as stipulated. The court 

imposed a $5,100 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $5,100 parole revocation fine, stayed 

pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45), an $80 court security fee 

(§ 1465.8), a $60 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $1,140 fine 

pursuant to section 290.3 (with a breakdown of the fine to be attached to the abstract of 

judgment and provided to defendant). The attachment reflects a $300 first offense base 

fine (§ 290.3, subd. (a)), a $300 state penalty assessment (§ 1464), a $210 county penalty 

assessment (Gov. Code, § 76000), a $60 DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crime and 

Innocence Protection Act (Prop. 69) penalty (Gov. Code, § 76104.6), a $150 state court 

construction penalty (Gov. Code, § 70372, subd. (a)), a $60 emergency medical services 

penalty (Gov. Code, § 76000.5), and a $60 state surcharge (§ 1465.7), for a total fine of 

$1,140. The court awarded defendant 92 days of presentence custody credit (80 actual 

days plus 12 conduct days).3

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a 

certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) 

Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that 

we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a 

supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 

days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant. 

 

3 We note the credits are mistakenly transposed on both the September 4, 2014, and 

June 8, 2015 (amended) abstracts of judgment, although the total of 92 days is correct.
4

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error 

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We do note, however, that 

the abstract of judgment reflects the following, none of which was included in the court’s 

oral pronouncement of judgment: “Defendant to pay $180.00 to the Victim of Crimes 

Fund plus 10% interest from and after 02/08/13 plus a 10% collection fee. The Court 

reserves as to future victim restitution.” Where there is a discrepancy between the oral 

pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral 

pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186; People v. 

Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) Because the trial court did not orally impose any such 

fine, we exercise our inherent authority to correct the abstract by striking reference to 

such language from the abstract. (People v. Mitchell, supra, at p. 185.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the amended 

abstract of judgment by striking the words “Defendant to pay $180.00 to the Victim of 

Crimes Fund plus 10% interest from and after 02/08/13 plus a 10% collection fee” and 

“The Court reserves as to future victim restitution.” Additionally, the court is directed to 

correct the transposition of actual and conduct credits as indicated above, and to forward 

a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation. 

 BUTZ , J.

We concur:

 RAYE , P. J.

 HULL , J.