1

Filed 3/18/22 P. v. Ramey CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JOSEPH FOSTER RAMEY, Defendant and Appellant. E075874 (Super.Ct.No. INF1800469)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Burke Strunsky, Judge.
Affirmed. Joseph Foster Ramey, in pro. per. , and Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
In a n open plea to the court, defendant and appellant Joseph Foster Ramey pl e d guilty to the sheet as charged to numerous felony offenses. He also admitted that he had2

one prison prior ( Pen. Code , 1 § 667.5, subd

. ( b ) ) and that he committed most of the
offenses while out on bail (§ 12022.1)

. A trial court denied probatio n and sent enced
defendant to a total term of 17 years four months in state prison. It also ordered him to pay various fees and fines.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, challenging the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea

. We affirm.
PROCEDU RAL BACKGROUND
A 28

- count information filed on June 20, 2019 , charged defendant with 22 counts
of burglary ( Pen. Code, § 459, counts 1

- 4, 6, 9

- 19, 22

- 26, and 28), one count of receiving stolen property ( Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a), count 5), two counts of buying/receiving a stolen vehicle ( Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), counts 8 and 21), one count of unlawfully
obtain ing personal identifying information of another person ( Pen. Code, § 530.5,
subd. (c), count 27), and two counts of the unlawful taking/driving of a stolen vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851, counts 7 and 20). It also alleged that defendant had one prison prior ( Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)) and that he committed the offenses in counts 2

- 28 while
out on bail on count 1 ( Pen. Code, § 12022.1). On January 3, 2020, defendant entered an open plea to the court, pleading guilty to
each of the c harged counts , with no indicated sentence

. He also admitted the prior prison
conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b) ) and the release d

- on
- bail enhancement (§ 12022.1 ). The court dismissed the prison prior upon the People’s motion. As part of the open plea,

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.3

defendant was advised that the maximum sentence he could receive was 34 years four
months

. He also agreed to complete the residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program before the sentencing hearing

. The court held a sentencing hearing on September 8, 2020. It acknowledged that defendant completed the RSAT program and then heard several victim impact statements and argument from counsel

. T he court denied probation and sentenced defendant as
follows: a s to count 1, the principal count, the midterm of four years ; as to count 2, one

third the midterm , o r 16 months , consecutive; a s to coun t 3, the midterm of four years , concurrent; a s to count 4, one

- third the midterm , o r 16 months , consecutive ; as to counts
5

- 8, concurrent midterms of two years, with a section 654 stay on count 8 ; a s to count 9,

one
- third the midterm , o r eight months , cons ecutive ; a s to counts 10 through 16, the midterm of two years , concurrent ; a s to count s 17

- 19 , one
- third the midterm , o r 16
months , consecutive ; 2 a s to count 20, the midterm of two years , concurrent; a s to count 21, the midterm of two years , stayed pursuant to section 654; a s to count 22, the midterm of four years , concurrent; as to count 23, one

- third the midterm , o r 16 months , consecutive; a s to count s 24 and 25 , the midterm of four years , concurrent; a s to count 26, one

- third the midterm , o r 16 months , consecutive; a s to count 27, the midterm of two
years , concurrent; and a s to count 28, one

- third the midterm , o r 16 months , consecutive

. As to the section 12022.1 enhancement , the court sentenced defendant to two years ,

2 The court orally stated that the sentence on count 18 should run concurrent; however, the court subsequently clarified that it misspoke when it said the sentence was t o run concurrent, and that it intended the sentence on count 18 to run consecutive.4

consecutive to all cou nts

. The court ordered defendant to pay a $300 victim restitution
fine , $300 parole revocation fine , $40 court operations assessment , and a $30 criminal
conviction assessment , 3 and stated that restitution on all counts was to be determined.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal on October 8, 2020, stating that the appeal was

“ based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the ple a. ”
DISCUSSION Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a st atement of
the case and the following potential arguable issues : (1) whether defendant’s guilty plea

was constitutionally valid ; (2) whether the court err ed in failing to consider his ability to pay the fines and fees ; (3) whether the court abuse d its di scretion by denying probation ; (4) whether Assembly Bill No. 1950 appl ies to his case ; (5) whether Assembly Bill No. 124 or Senate Bill No. 567 apply to his case ; (6) whether Assembly Bill No. 177 or Assembly Bill No. 1869 apply to his case ; and (7) w hether his trial counsel was ineffective

. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire
record.

3 The minute order and abstract of judgment list the court operations fee as $1 , 120, or $40 per conviction ( Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and the criminal conviction assessment as $840, or $30 per conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373).5

We offered defendant an opportunity to file a persona l supplemental brief, which
he has done. He filed a handwritten document, in which he asks this court to run the
consecutive time on his sentence concurrent. He proceeds to discuss his longstanding addiction to drugs, his complet ion of the RSAT program , and how much he has changed in the past few years. He further state s that he has a fiancé and a daughter , and he is looking for something positive to do with his time. Defendant assert s that he has signed up for fire camp and believe s that if the court g rant s him the chance to have his consecutive terms changed to concurrent terms, he will be able to go to fire camp, which
will allow him to return to his fiancé and daughter. Since d efendant’s request is unsupported by legal or factual analysis , we will p ass on it without consideration. ( Atchley v. City of Fresno (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 635, 647 ; see People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793 [a court need not consider a claim that is not accompanied by argument or authority ].)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues

.6 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

McKINSTER J.