Filed 8/31/17 P. v. Ramirez CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Vincent Paul Ramirez appeals from a judgment entered after he pleaded no contest to two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 16 by a perpetrator over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d)). Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436 (Wende) on behalf of defendant. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf, but he has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. We affirm the judgment.

I.Factual and Procedural Background

In October 2014, 14-year-old Mariana Doe reported to the police that she had met defendant through a social media site. After about a week, defendant convinced her to meet him. When she told him her age, he replied, “Age is just a number.” They eventually engaged in several sexual acts at defendant’s mother’s house.

In February 2015, defendant was charged in a felony complaint with: one count of sexual penetration of a person under age 16 by a person over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (i) – count 1); two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under age 16 by a person over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d) – counts 2 and 4); one count of sodomy on a person age 16 by a person over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 286, subd. (b)(2) – count 3); and one count of oral copulation on a person under age 16 by a person over age 21 (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (b)(2) – count 5).

In August 2015, the trial court summarized the plea agreement. Defendant would plead no contest to counts 2 and 4, be placed on formal probation, which included a condition that he serve one year in county jail. Defendant would also be subject to other appropriate terms and conditions of probation. The only issue left open for sentencing was whether defendant would be required to register under Penal Code section 290.006. The trial court advised defendant of his rights to a preliminary hearing, to a jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses, to testify, to call witnesses, to present a defense, to use the court’s subpoena power, and to remain silent. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and waived them. He also signed and dated an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form. In response to questioning by the trial court, defendant stated that he understood the consequences of his pleas as described in this form. Defendant pleaded no contest to counts 2 and 4. Both the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that there was a factual basis for the pleas.

The trial court referred the case to the probation department for a presentence report and a Static-99R assessment. Defendant was released on his own recognizance after he signed a “Cruz” waiver. This waiver stated: “I understand if I willfully fail to appear for future court dates, I will lose the benefit of any plea agreement. The sentencing judge could then impose a different or greater punishment up to the maximum possible sentence, and I would not be allowed to withdraw my plea because of that different or greater punishment.”

The probation report provided a summary of the offenses with which defendant had been charged. Defendant’s score on the Static-99R assessment was moderate to high risk for another sexual offense.

On January 12, 2016, defendant failed to appear for sentencing. The trial court revoked his release on his own recognizance and issued a no bail bench warrant. While the warrant for his arrest was pending, defendant was sentenced to four years in state prison in Fresno County for infliction of corporal injury on a spouse with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (f)(1)).

On August 29, 2016, the sentencing hearing was held. The trial court reimposed the four-year term in the Fresno County case. It imposed a consecutive one-year term for count 2 and a concurrent three-year term for count 4 in the Santa Clara County case. Based on the record before it, the trial court found that the offenses were committed for purposes of sexual gratification and that it was likely that defendant would commit another sexual offense. Accordingly, the trial court ordered registration under Penal Code section 290. Counts 1, 3, and 5 were dismissed. Defendant filed a timely appeal.

Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.

II. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________

Mihara, J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________________

Elia, Acting P. J.

_____________________________

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

People v. Ramirez

H043978