Filed 9/11/23 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ANGEL RAMIREZ JR.

,
Defendant and Appellant. B327842

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. B A181882)

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, H. Clay Jacke, II, Judge. Affirmed.
Allen G. Weinberg , under appointment by the Court of Appeal ; and Angel Ramirez Jr., i n pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________2 A jury convicted Angel Ramirez Jr. in 2000 of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) 1 and found true specially alleged firearm enhan cements (§ § 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)

, 12022, subd. (a) ). We affirmed Ramirez’s conviction on direct appeal. ( People v. Ramirez (Oct. 3, 2001, B142800) [nonpub. opn.].) On December 14, 2022, after appointing counsel for Ramirez and receiving a response from the prosecutor and a reply from Ramirez’s counsel, the superior court summarily denied Ramirez’s petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (since renumbered section 1172.6), ruling Ramirez was ineligible
for relief as a matter of law because he was not prosecuted under theories of felony murder or natural and probable consequences or any other theory that imputed malice to hi m

. No arguable issues have been identified following review of the record by Ramirez’s appointed counsel. We also have identified no arguable issues after our own independent review of the record and analysis of the contentions presented by Ramirez in his supplemental brief. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The evidence at trial established that Daniel Valenzuela, an associate of the Clover criminal street gang, was shot and killed while in the laundry room of his mother’s home.
Valenz uela’s mother heard the gunshots and saw the shooter jump into a n awaiting car . A nearby police helicopter spotted the
assailant as he entered the car and followed the vehicle from the
air

. Almost immediately

, the car pull e d to the cur b

, and the passenger got out and ran. The police helicopter continued to

1 Statutory references are to this code.3

follow the car

, which stopped a fter being forced to do so by law enforcement officers in marked police cars. Ramirez , who later told the investigating officer he was an Eastlake gang member,

wa s in the driver’s seat

. N o other individuals were with him.
The People argued the shooting was a planned killing by an Eastlake gang member committed in retaliation for an earlier shooting of an Eastlake gang member by a Clover gang member

. The People argued Ramirez was an East lake gang member and directly aided and abetted a preme ditated murder

. Ramirez tes tified in his own defense, denying he was an Eastlake gang member or associate. According to Ramirez, he

was driving to get milk when he heard gunshots and a man he knew, but refused to identify, jumped in to his car and told him to
drive. When a police helicopter used its light to illuminate
Ramirez’s vehicle, Ramirez’s passenger told him to stop the car and let him out. Ramirez complied , and the man fled

. Ramirez
continued driving because he was confused and wanted to get away from the area. The jury found Ramirez guilty of first degree murder and found true specially alleged firearm and gang enhancements.

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez on appeal from the denial of his postjudgment petition. After reviewing the record, appointed counsel did not identify any arguable issues and so informed this court. Appointed counsel advised Ramirez

on July 26, 2023 that he was filing a brief s tating he was unable
to find arguable issues and that Ramirez could personally submit any contentions he believed the court should consider. On August 17, 2023 we received a three

- page handwritten supplemental brief from Ramirez in which he argued there w as4

insufficient evidence to prove he knew the shooter’s intent as required to find him guilty of directly aiding and abetting a premeditated murder

. He emphasize d the police reports and
witness accounts were inconsistent and no gun was ever found in his p ossession . He also argued the People’s gang expert was not qualified to provide expert testimony and his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to call a gang expert to support his defense. Finally, Ramirez asserted that, because he

was 19 years old at the time of the shooting, he qualified for a youth offender parole hearing under S enate Bill No. 261 , effective January 1, 2016 (§ 3 051, subd. (b)(3))

. None of Ramirez’s arguments relate s to his eligibility for resentencing

, nor does the record suggest he could have been found guilty under a now

- invalid theory of imputed malice

. To
the extent R amirez’s reliance on Senate Bill No. 261 indicates a desire to exercise his rights under People v. Franklin (2016)
63 Cal.4th 261 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 to supplement
the record in his case with information relevant to an eventual youth offender parole hearing, the correct procedural vehicle for an inmate to request a postjudgment evidence preservation proceeding, as the Su preme Court held in In re Cook , is a motion pursuant to section 1203.01, subdivision (a) (see In re Cook , at

pp

. 451

- 454), not a petition or motion for resentencing. Because no cognizable legal i ssues have been raised by Ramirez’s appellate counsel or by Ramirez or identified in our independent review of the record, the order denying his petition for resentencing is affirmed. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022)

14 Cal.5th 216

. 231

- 232; see generally People v. Kelly (2006)
40 Cal.4th 106, 118

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

441

- 442 .)5 DISPOSITION The postjudgment order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.