Court Opinion

ID: 9839136
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-11 20:05:53.700885+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:32.318252
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                      DIVISION SEVEN

 THE PEOPLE,                                                B327842

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                        (Los Angeles County
                                                            Super. Ct. No. BA181882)
           v.

 ANGEL RAMIREZ JR.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      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., in pro. per., for Defendant and
Appellant.
      No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                 _______________________
      A jury convicted Angel Ramirez Jr. in 2000 of first degree
murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and found true specially
alleged firearm enhancements (§§ 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 him.
       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.
Valenzuela’s mother heard the gunshots and saw the shooter
jump into an 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 pulled to the curb, and the
passenger got out and ran. The police helicopter continued to

1
      Statutory references are to this code.

                                 2
follow the car, which stopped after 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,
was in the driver’s seat. No 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 Eastlake gang member and
directly aided and abetted a premeditated murder.
       Ramirez testified 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 into 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 stating 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 was

                                3
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 emphasized the police reports and
witness accounts were inconsistent and no gun was ever found in
his possession. 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 Senate Bill No. 261, effective
January 1, 2016 (§ 3051, subd. (b)(3)).
       None of Ramirez’s arguments relates 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 Ramirez’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 Supreme 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 issues 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.)

                                 4
                 DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.

                             PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

     SEGAL, J.

     FEUER, J.

                         5