Filed 3/10/23 P. v. Ramirez CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT ANTONIO 

RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B322960

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. VA130983-02)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed.

Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

______________________________
2

Robert Antonio Ramirez was originally convicted on two 

counts of attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault 

and shooting at an inhabited dwelling with related firearm-use, 

criminal street gang and prior felony conviction enhancements 

and sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of 

37 years to life. Following reversal and remand (People v. 

Ramirez (Apr. 1, 2022, B265610) [nonpub. opn.]), the People 

elected not to retry the attempted murder charges or the criminal 

street gang enhancement allegations. The trial court then 

resentenced Ramirez to a determinate state prison term of 

14 years.

On appeal Ramirez’s appointed counsel has identified no 

arguable issues following her review of the record. We have 

independently reviewed the record and also find no arguable 

issues. The judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

As we explained in our April 2022 opinion, applying the law 

as it existed at the time of our decisions, in 2017 and again in 

2019 we affirmed all five of Ramirez’s convictions for attempted 

murder, aggravated assault and shooting at an inhabited 

dwelling, which had been based on the natural and probable 

consequences doctrine. After granting Ramirez’s petition for 

review in December 2019, on January 5, 2022 the Supreme Court 

transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our 2019 

decision affirming the convictions and to reconsider the cause in 

light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2).

Following supplemental briefing we reversed Ramirez’s 

convictions for attempted murder, as well as the criminal street 

gang enhancements imposed on all counts, based on Senate Bill 

No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015), which eliminated accomplice 
3

liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine; Senate Bill No. 775, which expanded the reach of 

Senate Bill No. 1437 to include convictions for attempted murder 

and voluntary manslaughter and provided a defendant convicted 

under a now invalid theory of murder or attempted murder could

seek relief on direct appeal; and Assembly Bill No. 333 

(Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 3), which increased the proof 

requirements for imposition of a criminal street gang 

enhancement, modifying the definitions of “criminal street gang” 

and “pattern of criminal gang activity” and clarifying the 

evidence needed to establish an offense benefits, promotes, 

furthers or assists a criminal street gang.

We again affirmed the convictions for assault with a 

firearm and shooting at an inhabited dwelling and remanded the 

case to provide the prosecution an opportunity to retry Ramirez 

on a legally viable theory of attempted murder and to retry the 

criminal street gang enhancements. We directed the trial court, 

if the People elected not to retry those matters, to resentence 

Ramirez in accordance with the terms of all applicable 

ameliorative legislation. We also instructed the trial court to use 

its discretion to consider whether to strike or dismiss the 

formerly mandatory firearm-use and prior felony convictions that

had been imposed.

On remand the People elected not to retry the attempted 

murder charges or the criminal street gang enhancements. At 

the resentencing hearing on July 25, 2022, at which Ramirez 

appeared in custody, the court sentenced Ramirez to an 

aggregate determinate state prison term of 14 years: The middle 

term of five years for shooting at an inhabited dwelling, doubled 
4

under the three strikes law, plus two consecutive two-year terms 

(one-third the middle term doubled) for aggravated assault. 

Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez in this appeal. 

After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. 

In her declaration accompanying the brief, counsel stated she had 

been unable to locate Ramirez to notify him a no-merits brief was 

being filed and he had the right to file a supplemental brief 

identifying any contentions or issues he wanted the court to

consider. As counsel explained, our December 6, 2022 

appointment letter indicated Ramirez’s location was “under 

investigation.” Counsel thereafter learned that Ramirez had 

been released on parole on October 26, 2022, and that, as of late 

January 2023, neither Ramirez’s parole officer nor his trial 

counsel had current contact information for him. 

We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate

counsel for Ramirez has complied with counsel’s responsibilities

and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 

528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-

119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J. FEUER, J.