1

Filed 11/2/21 P. v. Ramirez CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EFRAIN RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B307919

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BA397039)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Douglas Sortino, Judge. Reversed and 

remanded with directions.

Jonathan E. Demson, under appointment by the Court 

of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Daniel C. Chang 
2

and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff 

and Respondent.

__________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Efrain Ramirez appeals from the superior 

court’s denial of his petition for resentencing filed under 

Penal Code section 1170.95, alleging he was convicted of two 

counts of attempted murder and requesting the appointment 

of counsel.1 The superior court denied his petition without 

appointing counsel, concluding that persons convicted of 

attempted murder are ineligible for relief under section 

1170.95. After this appeal was deemed submitted but before 

we issued an opinion, the Governor approved Senate Bill No. 

775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (SB 775). (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, 

§ 2.) This legislation, which takes effect on January 1, 2022, 

amends section 1170.95 to permit certain persons convicted 

of attempted murder to seek relief. (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 8; 

Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.) Accordingly, we vacated the 

submission of this appeal and requested further briefing on 

the effects of SB 775 on this appeal. In their supplemental 

briefing, both parties agreed that the matter should be 

remanded to permit the superior court to appoint counsel for 

appellant and conduct further proceedings under the new 

section 1170.95 after January 1, 2022. We agree.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

A. Underlying Crime

In April 2012, appellant was accused of driving the car 

from which codefendant Edwin Celis shot at victim Bryan G.

and later at victim “John Doe.” (People v. Ramirez (Dec. 20, 

2016, B267516) 2016 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 9140, *2-*4

(Ramirez I).) Appellant was charged by information with the 

attempted murder of Bryan G. and John Doe, and the 

charges were accompanied by gang and firearm allegations. 

(Id. at *2.)

The jury found appellant guilty on both counts, and 

found true the gang and firearm allegations. (Ramirez I, 

supra, 2016 Cal.App.Unpub. LEXIS 9140, at *15-*16.) For 

the first count (attempted murder of Bryan G.), the court 

imposed a sentence of life with the possibility of parole for 

the attempted murder, plus 25 years to life for the firearm 

allegation. (Id. at *16.) For the second count (attempted 

murder of John Doe), the court imposed a consecutive 

sentence of life with the possibility of parole for the 

attempted murder, plus 20 years for the firearm allegation. 

(Ibid.) The court also imposed a restitution fine. (Id. at 

*17.) After appellant appealed, we modified the judgment to 

clarify that the restitution fine was joint and several with 

codefendant Celis, but otherwise affirmed his conviction. 

(Id. at *17, *27.)
4

B. Appellant’s Petition for Resentencing

In July 2020, appellant petitioned for resentencing

under section 1170.95, alleging that he “was convicted of 1st 

or 2nd degree attempted murder, 2 counts under the natural 

and probable consequences doctrine,” and requesting the 

appointment of counsel. The court denied the petition

without appointing counsel, finding that “[a] jury convicted 

defendant of two counts of willful, deliberate, and 

premeditated attempted murder” and that “[t]he offense of 

attempted murder is outside the scope of section 1170.95.” 

Appellant timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

“Senate Bill 1437 [SB 1437] ‘amend[ed] the felony 

murder rule and the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine, as it relates to murder, to ensure that murder 

liability is not imposed on a person who is not the actual 

killer, did not act with the intent to kill, or was not a major 

participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless 

indifference to human life.’” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10 

Cal.5th 830, 842.) The bill also “added section 1170.95 to 

provide a procedure for those convicted of felony murder or 

murder under the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine to seek relief . . . .” (Id. at 843.)

Prior to SB 775, courts unanimously held that “the 

relief provided in section 1170.95 is limited to certain 

murder convictions and excludes all other convictions, 

including a conviction for attempted murder.” (People v. 
5

Larios (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 956, 966, 970, review granted 

Feb. 26, 2020, S259983.) However, SB 775 amends 

subdivision (a) of section 1170.95 to read, in pertinent part: 

“A person convicted of . . . attempted murder under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine . . . may file a 

petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have 

the petitioner’s . . . attempted murder . . . conviction vacated 

and to be resentenced on any remaining counts . . . .” (Stats. 

2021, ch. 551, § 2.) The People concede that under the 

amended section 1170.95, appellant “may be able to 

establish a prima facie showing of eligibility.” Because 

appellant’s judgment will not be final until after the new 

section 1170.95 takes effect, we remand the matter to the 

trial court for further proceedings, to occur after January 1, 

2022. (See People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 973 

[because defendant’s judgment will not be final until after 

effective date of relevant Senate Bill, appropriate to remand 

for proceedings after the effective date].)
6

DISPOSITION

The order denying appellant’s section 1170.95 petition 

is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to 

appoint counsel for appellant and to proceed, on or after 

January 1, 2022, consistent with the pertinent provisions of 

section 1170.95.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL

REPORTS

 MANELLA, P. J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, J.

COLLINS, J.