Court Opinion

ID: 9378564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 20:02:29.440783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.126460
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/10/23 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                 B322960

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                         (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. VA130983-02)
           v.

 ROBERT ANTONIO
 RAMIREZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed.
     Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                ______________________________
      Robert Antonio Ramirez was originally convicted on two
counts of attempted murder, two counts of aggravated assault
and shooting at an inhabited dwelling with related firearm-use,
criminal street gang and prior felony conviction enhancements
and sentenced to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of
37 years to life. Following reversal and remand (People v.
Ramirez (Apr. 1, 2022, B265610) [nonpub. opn.]), the People
elected not to retry the attempted murder charges or the criminal
street gang enhancement allegations. The trial court then
resentenced Ramirez to a determinate state prison term of
14 years.
      On appeal Ramirez’s appointed counsel has identified no
arguable issues following her review of the record. We have
independently reviewed the record and also find no arguable
issues. The judgment is affirmed.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       As we explained in our April 2022 opinion, applying the law
as it existed at the time of our decisions, in 2017 and again in
2019 we affirmed all five of Ramirez’s convictions for attempted
murder, aggravated assault and shooting at an inhabited
dwelling, which had been based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. After granting Ramirez’s petition for
review in December 2019, on January 5, 2022 the Supreme Court
transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our 2019
decision affirming the convictions and to reconsider the cause in
light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2).
       Following supplemental briefing we reversed Ramirez’s
convictions for attempted murder, as well as the criminal street
gang enhancements imposed on all counts, based on Senate Bill
No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015), which eliminated accomplice

                                2
liability for murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine; Senate Bill No. 775, which expanded the reach of
Senate Bill No. 1437 to include convictions for attempted murder
and voluntary manslaughter and provided a defendant convicted
under a now invalid theory of murder or attempted murder could
seek relief on direct appeal; and Assembly Bill No. 333
(Stats. 2021, ch. 699, § 3), which increased the proof
requirements for imposition of a criminal street gang
enhancement, modifying the definitions of “criminal street gang”
and “pattern of criminal gang activity” and clarifying the
evidence needed to establish an offense benefits, promotes,
furthers or assists a criminal street gang.
       We again affirmed the convictions for assault with a
firearm and shooting at an inhabited dwelling and remanded the
case to provide the prosecution an opportunity to retry Ramirez
on a legally viable theory of attempted murder and to retry the
criminal street gang enhancements. We directed the trial court,
if the People elected not to retry those matters, to resentence
Ramirez in accordance with the terms of all applicable
ameliorative legislation. We also instructed the trial court to use
its discretion to consider whether to strike or dismiss the
formerly mandatory firearm-use and prior felony convictions that
had been imposed.
       On remand the People elected not to retry the attempted
murder charges or the criminal street gang enhancements. At
the resentencing hearing on July 25, 2022, at which Ramirez
appeared in custody, the court sentenced Ramirez to an
aggregate determinate state prison term of 14 years: The middle
term of five years for shooting at an inhabited dwelling, doubled

                                 3
under the three strikes law, plus two consecutive two-year terms
(one-third the middle term doubled) for aggravated assault.
      Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal.
                          DISCUSSION
      We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
In her declaration accompanying the brief, counsel stated she had
been unable to locate Ramirez to notify him a no-merits brief was
being filed and he had the right to file a supplemental brief
identifying any contentions or issues he wanted the court to
consider. As counsel explained, our December 6, 2022
appointment letter indicated Ramirez’s location was “under
investigation.” Counsel thereafter learned that Ramirez had
been released on parole on October 26, 2022, and that, as of late
January 2023, neither Ramirez’s parole officer nor his trial
counsel had current contact information for him.
      We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate
counsel for Ramirez has complied with counsel’s responsibilities
and there are no arguable issues. (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-
119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)
                         DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.

                                     PERLUSS, P. J.

      We concur:

            SEGAL, J.                FEUER, J.

                                 4