People v. Ramirez CA2/7
B305683
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 29, 2021Background
- Defendant Moniquie Ramirez was convicted (1996) of second-degree murder and attempted murder after a group she joined invaded the Legarreta home; Daniel Legarreta was killed during the incident.
- At trial the jury was instructed on express malice, felony-murder (attempted robbery), and natural-and-probable-consequence theories; Ramirez was convicted and later had sentence remanded and adjusted on appeal.
- In 2019 Ramirez petitioned under Penal Code §1170.95 (Senate Bill 1437) asserting she was not the actual killer, did not intend to kill, and was not a major participant who acted with reckless indifference.
- The superior court held an evidentiary §1170.95(d)(3) hearing, considered the appellate opinion summarizing trial facts, found beyond a reasonable doubt Ramirez was a major participant and acted with recklessness, and denied the petition.
- On appeal Ramirez argued (1) the superior court may have applied the wrong burden (substantial evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt) and (2) the court improperly relied on the court of appeal opinion as inadmissible hearsay. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper burden of proof at §1170.95(d)(3) hearing | Prosecution must prove ineligibility beyond a reasonable doubt | Record unclear; remand needed because court may have used substantial-evidence standard | Court applied beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and no remand required |
| Use of prior appellate opinion as evidence | Appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction and may be considered at the hearing | Appellate opinion is inadmissible hearsay and cannot be relied on to deny relief | Appellate opinion is part of the record and may be considered as reliable hearsay at §1170.95 hearing |
| Sufficiency to prove "major participant" and "reckless indifference" under amended §189 | Record of conviction (including appellate opinion) and facts satisfy Banks/Clark factors beyond a reasonable doubt | Ramirez was not a major participant nor reckless; insufficient evidence | Superior court found beyond a reasonable doubt Ramirez was a major participant and acted recklessly; petition denied (appellate review applies substantial-evidence standard to those findings) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel at §1170.95 proceedings | (People) no reversible deficiency shown | Ramirez contends counsel misunderstood procedural standards and erred | Claim rejected: record does not show counsel performed deficiently; statutory right to counsel acknowledged but ineffective-assistance claim lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rodriguez, 58 Cal.App.5th 227 (court must apply beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard at §1170.95(d)(3) evidentiary hearing)
- People v. Banks, 61 Cal.4th 788 (framework for evaluating aider/abettor felony-murder culpability)
- People v. Clark, 63 Cal.4th 522 (limits on finding reckless indifference for aider/abettor; Banks/Clark factors)
- People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (Senate Bill 1437 changes to accomplice liability and retroactivity principles)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (appellate opinion is part of the record of conviction)
- People v. Duke, 55 Cal.App.5th 113 (contrasting view on applicable standard of proof at §1170.95 hearings)
- People v. Verdugo, 44 Cal.App.5th 320 (appellate opinion is part of the record; §1170.95 procedures)
- People v. Harris, 60 Cal.App.5th 939 (prior appellate opinion may be considered as reliable hearsay in postconviction resentencing)
- People v. Lopez, 56 Cal.App.5th 936 (discusses burden and proof issues under §1170.95)