People v. Ramos
F080916M
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 16, 2022Background
- On February 3, 2018, Ramos and three codefendants confronted E.D. and C.A. at a convenience store; later a black sedan driven by Ramos pulled alongside the victims’ car, two gunshots were fired into the victims’ vehicle, and Ramos was shown driving the sedan on surveillance video.
- Ramos was tried with multiple co-defendants; the jury acquitted on attempted murder counts, convicted all four of shooting into an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code §246), found true a gang enhancement (former §186.22(b)(1)(C)), and found a principal used a firearm (§12022.53).
- Prosecution relied on gang expert testimony, prior gang-related contacts, and certified convictions of other Norteño members to prove pattern-of-activity predicate offenses.
- While the appeal was pending, Assembly Bill 333 (effective Jan. 1, 2022) amended §186.22 (raising predicate requirements and timing, narrowing predicate offenses, defining “benefit”) and added §1109 (bifurcation of gang enhancement trials on request).
- The Court of Appeal held the §186.22 amendments and §1109 apply retroactively; it reversed Ramos’s gang enhancement and the related §12022.53 enhancement, affirmed the §246 conviction (finding no prejudice from failure to bifurcate), and remanded for possible retrial on the enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior uncharged 2009 conduct (Evid. Code §§1101, 352) | Evidence was admissible to prove Ramos’s gang affiliation and limited by instruction; probative and not unduly prejudicial | Evidence was remote, inflammatory, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial; should be excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting limited evidence; any admission was not prejudicial given other gang and aiding/abetting evidence; conviction stands |
| Retroactivity and effect of Assembly Bill 333 amendments to §186.22 | Parties agreed amendments are ameliorative and apply retroactively; People preserved right to retry under new standard | Ramos argued retroactive application requires reversal of his gang enhancement because predicates did not meet new timing/member/common-benefit rules | Amendments apply retroactively under Estrada/Tapia; gang enhancement reversed because the two proffered predicate offenses fell outside the new 3‑year timing and other heightened requirements; People may retry |
| Retroactivity of §1109 (bifurcation) and effect of failure to bifurcate | §1109 is procedural but—if retroactive—any error here was harmless on these facts; lack of bifurcation did not prejudice verdict | §1109 is ameliorative and should apply retroactively; failure to bifurcate requires reversal of the underlying conviction | §1109 is retroactive under Estrada inference, but failure to bifurcate here was not reasonably probable to have changed the verdict; underlying §246 conviction affirmed |
| Interaction and validity of §12022.53 firearm enhancement after reversing gang enhancement | Trial court could impose and stay the firearm enhancement; but if gang enhancement fails, the firearm enhancement tied to gang penalty is unsupported | Firearm enhancement should be vacated because it derived its applicability from the now-reversed gang life term | Because the §186.22 gang enhancement is reversed, the §12022.53 gang-related enhancement (imposed pursuant to the alternate penalty) must be reversed/vacated; People may retry the enhancement on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Establishes presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal-law changes)
- Tapia v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 282 (Retroactivity applies to statutes that reduce burdens for enhancements)
- People v. Brookfield, 47 Cal.4th 583 (Court cannot impose both §12022.53 firearm enhancement and §186.22 life term; choose greater penalty)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Interprets §12022.53—trial courts generally stay rather than strike prohibited firearm enhancements to preserve appellate relief options)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Prejudice standard: reasonable probability that result would have been more favorable absent the error)
- People v. Leon, 161 Cal.App.4th 149 (Admission of prior acts may be cumulative; harmless error if other evidence strongly establishes issues)
- People v. Hernandez, 33 Cal.4th 1040 (Gang evidence admissible when relevant to motive/guilt; bifurcation may be required if evidence is highly prejudicial and irrelevant to guilt)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Due process requires ability-to-pay hearing before imposing certain fines/assessments)
- People v. Anderson, 9 Cal.5th 946 (Explains §12022.53(e)(1) pleading/proof requirements linking firearm enhancements to gang allegations)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Applies Estrada retroactivity analysis to ameliorative statutory changes)