Filed 7/25/23 P. v. Ramirez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUIS ALBERTO RAMIREZ,

 Defendant and Appellant.

 G061178

 (Super. Ct. No. 07WF2103)

 O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. 

Prickett, Judge. Affirmed.

Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Swenson and Christopher 

P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

A complete recitation of this case’s unusual procedural history can be 

found in our prior nonpublished opinion, L.R. v. Superior Court (July 6, 2021, G059599)

(L.R.). Suffice it to say, after two sentencing hearings and four opinions from this court,

1

we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing Luis Alberto 

Ramirez to life in prison for crimes he committed while he was a juvenile, but for which 

he was tried as an adult. The trial court’s sentencing decision was not arbitrary or 

capricious. We affirm the judgment. 

FACTS2

I. Substantive Facts

Around midnight one summer evening in 2007, Ramirez and Jose 

Armendariz, who were both 16 years old,3Luis Menchaca, and Diane Estrada walked on 

a freeway overpass. Ramirez, Armendariz, and Menchaca were members of the Down 

Crowd street gang. (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

Menchaca saw a man and a woman, Oliver Martinez and Michelle Miller, 

walking onto the overpass behind them. Menchaca pretended to tie his shoe while his 

confederates waited so Martinez and Miller would pass them. As they passed, Menchaca 

recognized Martinez as a member of the rival Crow Village street gang. After the couple 

passed, Menchaca decided to “‘hit up’” Martinez. (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

Menchaca asked Martinez if he had a lighter. Martinez replied, “‘Aren’t 

you that pussy from dick cravers?’” which was a derogatory term for Down Crowd. 

Menchaca said, “‘Fuck Crow.’” (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

1

L.R., supra, G059599; People v. Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55; People 

v. Ramirez and Armendariz (Aug. 27, 2014, G044703) [nonpub. opn.] (Ramirez I); 

People v. Ramirez and Armendariz (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 655, review granted Dec. 18, 

2013, S214133.

2

The facts are taken from our prior opinion, Ramirez I, supra, G044703. 

3

Ramirez turned 16 years old 25 days before the offenses.
3

Ramirez pulled out a handgun and shot Martinez, shot Miller, and shot 

Martinez a few more times. Martinez and Miller died. (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

Ramirez, Menchaca, Armendariz, and Estrada ran back across the 

overpass—Estrada called a friend to pick them up. Menchaca told Ramirez to give him 

the expended rounds, and he dug a hole in the dirt and buried them. Ramirez reloaded 

the gun and gave it to Armendariz. They continued walking while they waited for the 

friend to arrive. The police arrived first. Armendariz hid the gun, and Ramirez threw a 

pair of gloves. Police officers detained Ramirez and Estrada. Menchaca and Armendariz 

fled, but police officers apprehended them. (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

A police officer found the gun and the gloves. Forensic testing revealed 

Ramirez’s DNA was on the gun and gloves, and he had gunshot residue on his right hand. 

(Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) 

Ramirez admitted to officers he was a member of Down Crowd but denied 

knowing Armendariz or Menchaca or being involved in the shooting. Menchaca told 

officers he was a member of Down Crowd and eventually recounted the gang 

confrontation and Ramirez’s shooting Martinez and Miller. Armendariz corroborated 

Menchaca’s account. (L.R., supra, G059599.) 

II. Procedural Facts

At trial, the prosecution’s theory was Ramirez was the actual shooter and 

Armendariz aided and abetted the murders. Ramirez was convicted of first degree

murder of Martinez, second degree murder of Miller, and active participation in a 

criminal street gang. The jury found true age, gang, and firearm allegations. In January 

2011, the trial court sentenced Ramirez to prison for life without the possibility of parole 

(LWOP) plus 65 years. (L.R., supra, G059599.) 

After we affirmed Ramirez’s convictions, reversed his sentence, and 

remanded for resentencing, the California Supreme Court granted review and remanded 

the matter to reconsider the decision in light of People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 
4

1354 (Gutierrez). (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.) On remand, we affirmed his convictions 

but reversed his sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court to resentence Ramirez 

in light of Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th 1354. (Ramirez I, supra, G044703.)

The trial court continued the resentencing numerous times over the next 

two years. Before the court resentenced Ramirez, California voters passed Proposition 

57, which changed the law regarding prosecution of minors in adult court. (Prop. 57, as 

approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016).) The court granted Ramirez’s request to 

transfer the case to the juvenile court but stayed the transfer. (L.R., supra, G059599.) 

The Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) appealed.

4

 In People v. 

Ramirez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 55, 67-68, this court concluded the trial court properly

transferred the matter to the juvenile court to conduct a transfer hearing. 

On remand, the juvenile court determined the matter should be transferred 

to adult court. We denied Ramirez’s petition for writ of mandate. (L.R., supra, 

G059599.)

Over 10 years after his first sentencing hearing, the matter proceeded for 

resentencing. Ramirez filed sentencing briefs supported by numerous exhibits, including 

Dr. Martha L. Rogers’s psychological evaluation, the Orange County Probation 

Department’s (OCPD) Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 report (prepared by 

probation officer Pablo Yepez), certificates, and letters.

5

 As relevant here, Yepez’s report 

detailed Ramirez’s custodial conduct, including 18 behavior notices, 11 incident reports, 

and two rule violation reports.6 The report also detailed a 2012 incident where Ramirez 

advanced toward correctional officers during a mass gang disturbance and a 2019 

4

The OCDA also filed a writ, which is unimportant here but is discussed in 

L.R., supra, G059599. 

 

5 We discussed Rogers’s and Yepez’s reports at length in L.R., supra, 

G059599. 

6 We detail Ramirez’s custodial conduct in L.R., supra, G059599. 
5

incident where Ramirez ran toward correctional officers and grabbed an officer’s hand. 

Yepez and Rogers both reported Ramirez declined to participate in custodial 

programming because of “‘prison politics.’” (L.R., supra, G059599.) 

The prosecution filed sentencing briefs supported by numerous exhibits, 

including our prior opinion in L.R., supra, G059599, police reports regarding two 

uncharged crimes that were admitted at Ramirez’s trial, Menchaca’s testimony regarding 

those uncharged crimes, and his custodial records.

At the hearing, the trial court stated it had read and considered the parties’ 

motions, voluminous exhibits, and the prior opinions from this court. The parties 

submitted on the written materials. The court explained that before imposing a life 

sentence on a juvenile, the sentencing court must determine whether the defendant was 

the rare juvenile who was irreparably corrupt. (Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 

479-480 (Miller).)

The trial court recited the five factors from Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th 

1354 that it must consider before imposing LWOP, which we discuss below. The court 

noted that since our decision in Ramirez I, supra, G044703, the Legislature provided for 

a youth offender parole hearing after 25 years. The court recited the parties’ arguments 

regarding each factor. The court inquired of the prosecution whether it intended to 

dismiss the gang and firearm allegations based on recent legislation. The prosecutor 

agreed. The court confirmed with counsel it was proceeding with sentencing on counts 1 

and 2, and the multiple murder allegation. 

The trial court stated it understood it had the discretion to strike the 

multiple murder special circumstance, sentence on count 1 or count 2, and to sentence 

consecutively or concurrently. The court recited the various factors to consider when 

imposing sentence. As to count 1, the court sentenced Ramirez to 25 years plus life 

without the possibility of parole for the Penal Code section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3),

special circumstance. The court imposed a consecutive term of 15 years to life on count 
6

2. The court stated, “The court does fashions [sic] this sentence recognizing that 

[Ramirez] will have numerous opportunities, irrespective of a life-without-possibility-ofparole sentence, to discuss this with the parole board.” The court explained it imposed 

LWOP because of the “cruel, vicious murder of two individuals for absolutely no 

justification,” and Ramirez’s custodial behavior.

After a brief off-the-record discussion between Ramirez’s counsel and the 

prosecutor, Ramirez’s counsel requested the court impose 40 years to life. The court 

declined counsel’s request and imposed sentence as indicated.

DISCUSSION

Ramirez argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing LWOP on 

count 1 because the record failed to demonstrate he was the rare juvenile offender who 

was irreparably corrupt. We disagree. 

In Miller, supra, 567 U.S. at page 479, the Supreme Court of the United 

States ruled, “[T]he Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in 

prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders.” However, a state may 

authorize its courts to impose LWOP on a juvenile homicide offender when the sentence

is discretionary and when the sentencing court properly exercises its discretion. (Id. at 

pp. 477-480 [“‘“rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption”’”]; 

Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1379.) The Court discussed a range of factors relevant 

to a sentencing court’s determination whether a defendant is a “‘rare juvenile offender 

whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.’” (Miller, supra, 567 U.S. at pp. 479-480; 

Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. 190, 208 [LWOP unconstitutional for juvenile 

homicide offender “whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth”].) 

In Gutierrez, our Supreme Court interpreted Miller to require sentencing 

courts to admit and consider relevant evidence of five factors. “First, a court must 

consider a juvenile offender’s ‘chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, 

immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences.’” (Gutierrez, 
7

supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1388 [adolescence marked by “‘transient rashness, proclivity for 

risk, and inability to assess consequences’”].) “Second, a sentencing court must consider 

any evidence or other information in the record regarding ‘the family and home 

environment that surrounds [the juvenile]—and from which he cannot usually extricate 

himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional.’” (Id. at pp. 1388-1389.) “Third, a 

court must consider any evidence or other information in the record regarding ‘the 

circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of [the juvenile defendant’s] 

participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected 

him.’” (Id. at p. 1389.) “Fourth, a court must consider any evidence or other information 

in the record as to whether the offender ‘might have been charged and convicted of a 

lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth—for example, his inability 

to deal with police officers or prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) or his 

incapacity to assist his own attorneys.’” (Ibid.) “Finally, a sentencing court must 

consider any evidence or other information in the record bearing on ‘the possibility of 

rehabilitation.’” (Ibid.) 

“[T]he trial court must consider all relevant evidence bearing on the 

‘distinctive attributes of youth’ . . . and how those attributes ‘diminish the penological 

justifications for imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders.’” (Gutierrez, 

supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1390.) However, the sentencing court is not required to make any 

specific finding regarding a juvenile’s incorrigibility. (Jones v. Mississippi (2021) ___ 

U.S. ___ [141 S.Ct. 1307, 1313] (Jones).) 

We review the trial court’s sentencing choices for abuse of discretion. 

(Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1391; People v. Blackwell (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 166, 

199 (Blackwell).) “A court’s exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal absent 

a showing that the court acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd way, 

resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. [Citation.] ‘In reviewing for abuse of 

discretion, we are guided by two fundamental precepts. First, “‘[t]he burden is on the 
8

party attacking the sentence to clearly show that the sentencing decision was irrational or 

arbitrary. [Citation.] In the absence of such a showing, the trial court is presumed to 

have acted to achieve legitimate sentencing objectives, and its discretionary 

determination to impose a particular sentence will not be set aside on review.’” 

[Citation.] Second, a “‘decision will not be reversed merely because reasonable people 

might disagree. “An appellate tribunal is neither authorized nor warranted in substituting 

its judgment for the judgment of the trial judge.”’”’ [Citation.]” (Blackwell, supra,

3 Cal.App.5th at p. 200.) 

Ramirez acknowledges the trial court recited the parties’ arguments 

regarding each Gutierrez factor but failed to articulate its reasoning. He asserts the court 

placed too great a significance on the crime, factor three, without affording appropriate 

significance to the other factors, although he only addresses factor one, age, and factor 

five, other evidence. He contends a proper application of the relevant evidence to the

factors establishes LWOP was improper. In fact, he claims a proper analysis of factor 

three, the crime, “militates against an LWOP sentence.”

In other words, what Ramirez requests we do is reweigh the relevant 

evidence against the factors and substitute our judgment for the sentencing court’s 

judgment. Ramirez’s appellate counsel knows we cannot do that. (Blackwell, supra,

3 Cal.App.5th at p. 200.) Appellate counsel also knows it is appellant’s burden to 

establish reversible error, i.e., no reasonable person could agree with the trial court’s 

sentencing decision. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) 

Ramirez has not satisfied his burden. By discussing only three of the 

Gutierrez factors, he effectively concedes the other two were inapplicable. (Gutierrez, 

supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1390 [not all factors will be relevant in every case].) Truth be 

told, factor two, Ramirez’s family and home environment, includes evidence from which 

one could reasonably conclude his family tried to steer the highly intelligent Ramirez 
9

away from gangs, but he was infatuated by the gang lifestyle and defied his family. 

(L.R., supra, G059599.) 

The record reflects the trial court considered each of the factors the Miller

and Gutierrez courts deemed relevant to a sentencing court’s determination of whether a 

particular defendant is a “‘rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable 

corruption.’” (Miller, supra, 567 U.S. at pp. 479-480; Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at

p. 1388.) The court stated it had read and considered the voluminous written submissions 

and recited with specificity the parties’ arguments regarding each of the five factors. The 

court reasoned Ramirez viciously and unjustifiably murdered two people. The evidence 

supports the court’s conclusion. 

Ramirez shot Martinez once, he shot Miller once, and he continued the 

senseless violence and shot Martinez a few more times. He reloaded the gun and gave it 

to a fellow gang member. When police arrived, he tried to discard incriminating 

evidence. Ramirez was mature beyond his 16 years. 

We agree with Ramirez it appears the trial court accorded significant

weight on the severity of his crimes. However, the fact the court concluded this factor 

deserved greater consideration was not an abuse of discretion. No particular factor is 

dispositive. (Blackwell, supra, 3 Cal.App.5th at p. 200.) As long as the court considers 

all the factors, which it did here, it is within the court’s discretion to “‘give such weight 

to the relevant factors as it reasonably determines is appropriate under all the 

circumstances of the case.’” (Ibid.) Ramirez’s claim that this factor weighs against an 

LWOP sentence because he was acting under peer pressure is an invitation for this court 

to reweigh the factors. We can’t. That the court did not acknowledge these facts when 

ruling is of no import. The court was acutely aware of these facts and considered them. 

Indeed, the court recited Ramirez’s argument that Menchaca influenced him and it was “a 

classic example of youth succumbing to peer pressure.” 
10

The trial court also placed significant weight on Ramirez’s custodial 

behavior. As we explained in L.R., supra, G059599, Ramirez’s custodial misconduct 

was not minimal. He had numerous rule violations and two incidents where he displayed 

aggressive conduct toward correctional officers. During one of those incidents, he 

grabbed an officer. The record includes other instances of gang related and unruly 

conduct. And he declined to participate in various programs because of prison politics. 

The court reasonably relied on this evidence to conclude his chances at rehabilitation 

were slight. 

Ramirez minimizes his wrongdoing, challenges the trial court’s 

characterization of his violent conduct, and draws positive inferences from the reports. 

Again, we cannot reweigh the relevant evidence against the factors. The court’s 

comments establish the court was aware of and considered Ramirez’s custodial conduct. 

This is all the court was required to do. It was entitled to draw its own conclusions. 

Ramirez has not satisfied his burden to establish those conclusions were arbitrary or 

capricious. The record demonstrates the court was fully aware of its discretion as it 

weighed the relevant evidence against the factors and concluded Ramirez was the rare 

juvenile offender who is irreparably corrupt and deserved LWOP.7 

Ramirez complains the trial court improperly considered Penal Code 

section 3051 in selecting LWOP. Penal Code section 3051 provides that an offender who 

committed a controlling offense as a youth is entitled to a youth offender parole hearing 

after a fixed period of years set by statute, here 25 years. Although the court did say it 

“fashion[ed] [the] sentence recognizing” he was entitled to a youth offender parole 

hearing, Ramirez makes too much of the court’s comment. We agree with the Attorney 

7

In his reply brief, Ramirez stresses the trial court declined to find he was 

irreparably corrupt and permanently incorrigible citing to Jones, supra, ___ U.S. ___ 

[141 S.Ct. 1307]. We do not read the record that way. The court was simply pointing out 

it was not required to make that finding before imposing LWOP. 
11

General the court was merely pointing out that despite the LWOP sentence, there 

remained hope he would not spend the rest of his life in prison. The court made the 

comment after it discussed the factors and the parties’ arguments, and imposed sentence. 

We do not read the court’s comment as an abdication of its sentencing duty. The trial 

court’s sentencing decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MOTOIKE, J.

DELANEY, J.