People v. Ramirez CA2/2
B309519
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 3, 2022Background
- Ramirez was convicted of first-degree murder (§ 187(a)) with gang enhancement and a true finding that a principal (his brother John) personally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53(d),(e)(1)); sentenced to 25-to-life + consecutive 25-to-life firearm term.
- Trial evidence: a bar fight, threats by Jose Ramirez with a steel pipe, John’s arrival in a black pickup and a gunshot; victim named “Johnny” as shooter; jailhouse statements by Jose indicating he called his brother to have the victim “hit” and “be gone.”
- Jury was instructed on multiple theories: premeditated first-degree murder, aiding-and-abetting, natural-and-probable-consequences (NPC), and conspiracy (including liability for acts in furtherance of the conspiracy).
- Ramirez petitioned for resentencing under former Penal Code § 1170.95 (post–Senate Bill 1437 relief); the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause.
- On remand the trial court declined to strike the § 12022.53 firearm enhancement under subdivision (h); Ramirez appealed both rulings.
- The Court of Appeal holds the § 1170.95 denial was erroneous (remands for an order to show cause) but affirms the trial court’s exercise of discretion in reimposing the firearm enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied Ramirez’s § 1170.95 petition at the prima facie stage | Record and instructions show jury necessarily found Ramirez personally premeditated first‑degree murder; NPC could only support second degree so § 1170.95 relief not available | Court erred by weighing evidence at prima facie stage; record does not conclusively refute petition because jurors could have convicted on NPC or conspiracy theories | Reversed: trial court improperly engaged in factfinding; Ramirez made a prima facie showing and the court must issue an order to show cause and proceed under § 1170.95(d)-(g) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion under § 12022.53(h) by reimposing the firearm enhancement | The evidence (threats, jailhouse admissions, conduct) shows Ramirez shared intent with the shooter and acted with reckless disregard; enhancement reimposition appropriate | Court failed to consider mitigating factors (heat of passion, alcohol, lack of felony history, limited gang evidence); Ramirez was not the shooter | Affirmed: appellate court finds no abuse of discretion and presumes trial judge considered mitigation unless record shows otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. People, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (explains § 1170.95 prima facie screening procedure and low bar for entitlement to an order to show cause)
- Gentile v. People, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Cal. 2020) (Senate Bill 1437 and interpretation: NPC cannot support murder liability in the same way after amendment of § 188)
- Chiu v. People, 59 Cal.4th 155 (Cal. 2014) (holds NPC liability cannot extend to first‑degree premeditated murder)
- People v. Offley, 48 Cal.App.5th 588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses when a record conclusively shows ineligibility for § 1170.95 relief)
- People v. Duchine, 60 Cal.App.5th 798 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (explains when facts in the record are conclusively established as a matter of law at prima facie stage)
- People v. Daniel, 57 Cal.App.5th 666 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (harmless‑error principles where § 1170.95 petition denied at prima facie stage)