1

Filed 12/29/14 P. v. Ramirez CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND MICHAEL RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

C075549

(Super. Ct. No. 13F04890)

Appointed counsel for defendant Raymond Michael Ramirez asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we shall

order correction of one minor error in the abstract of judgment and affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Prosecution Case-in-Chief

On July 31, 2013, 16-year-old Jasmine F. was at Hagan Park with her younger 

brothers. Jasmine saw a man and a woman, whom she assumed were a couple, arguing. 

They were approximately 40 feet from Jasmine when she saw them. Jasmine began 

moving away from the man and woman and looked away from them. When she looked 
2

back, she saw the man “beating” the woman. Using his fists, he threw 10 to 12 punches 

at her and knocked her to the ground. He struck “her face a lot” and struck her “a couple 

times in her stomach.”1 The man struck the woman two more times after she had fallen 

to the ground. Then the man fled and Jasmine lost sight of him. 

Jasmine went over to the woman and asked if she was okay. The woman told 

Jasmine she had fallen and had hit a tree. Jasmine had not seen the woman fall except the 

one time after the man had beaten her. 

Jasmine began to care for the injured woman. The woman told Jasmine, “Don’t 

say anything. Don’t say anything. I fell.” 

Jasmine borrowed a cellular telephone and called 911. Jasmine did not tell the 

911 operator about the man beating the woman. Instead, she told the operator the woman 

had fallen. 

More than five minutes after the assault, while Jasmine was on the telephone with 

the 911 operator, the man who had beaten the woman returned and stayed with her. 

Jasmine told the operator the woman referred to the man who was with her as her 

husband. When the operator inquired of Jasmine about the woman’s age, the man said 

she was “24.” At trial, Jasmine identified the man who had beaten the woman as 

defendant.

When emergency responders arrived on the scene, Jasmine spoke privately with 

one of them and told him everything that had happened. Then, when the police arrived at 

the scene, Jasmine told them everything she had witnessed. She observed a police officer 

speaking to the man who had beaten the woman.

 

1 At trial, Jasmine testified she recalled telling police officers and the prosecutor 

about the punches to the arms and stomach. But the parties stipulated that (1) when 

interviewed by police, Jasmine had not mentioned the man had hit the woman’s arms and 

stomach; and (2) when the prosecutor prepared Jasmine to testify, Jasmine had not 

mentioned the man hitting the woman’s arms and stomach. 
3

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Doug Wiedman responded to the incident at 

the park. Defendant told Wiedman that the injured woman, whom he identified as 

Melissa, was his wife; they had slept in the park the previous night; and they were 

transient. Defendant said he and Melissa had been arguing for several days. On the day 

of the incident they had argued about the dog they had with them and he had walked 

away from Melissa to avoid a physical confrontation. Defendant said Melissa had been 

yelling at him and suddenly she stopped. When defendant turned around, he saw Melissa 

lying on the ground and bleeding. Defendant denied hitting Melissa and had no idea how 

she had been injured. Defendant had dried blood on his shorts and fresh blood on his 

bandana. He did not have any injures on his hands. 

Melissa was treated at a medical center for a broken nose and lacerations on her 

nose. She also was treated for auricular hematoma, an injury caused by a direct blow to 

her ear.

Deputy Wiedman took defendant into custody. Defendant asked whether Melissa 

wanted to press charges against him. 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy John Lopes conducted the crime scene 

investigation. Lopes photographed Melissa’s injuries while she was at the medical 

center. The photographs depicted injuries to the head and arms. No injuries to the 

stomach or torso were visible. 

Defendant was photographed at the jail. He did not have any injuries on his 

hands. 

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Detective Kevin Warren contacted Jasmine on 

September 5, 2013, and showed her a photo lineup from which she selected defendant as 

the man who had assaulted the woman at the park on July 31, 2013. 

Defense

The defense rested without presenting testimony or other evidence.
4

Jury Verdict and Sentencing

A jury found defendant guilty of infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. 

Code, § 273.5, subd. (a); count one)2 and assault by force likely to produce great bodily 

injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count two).

Defendant was sentenced to prison on count one for the middle term of three 

years; sentence on count two was stayed pursuant to section 654. Defendant was 

awarded 141 days’ custody credit and 141 days’ conduct credit (id., § 4019) and ordered 

to pay a $280 restitution fine (id., § 1202.4), a $280 restitution fine suspended unless 

parole is revoked (id., § 1202.45), an $80 court operations fee (id., § 1465.8, subd. 

(a)(1)), a $60 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $382.22 main jail 

booking fee, and a $61.75 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.2). 

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 

received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the 

entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable 

to defendant.

Defendant’s appellate counsel notes a minor error on the abstract of judgment. 

The abstract fails to note that the booking and classification fees were imposed pursuant 

to Government Code section 29550.2. We order correction of the abstract.

 

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of 

judgment to reflect that booking and classification fees were imposed pursuant to 

Government Code section 29550.2. The court shall forward a certified copy of the 

corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

 HOCH , J.

We concur:

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.