P. v. Ramos
Filed 9/4/07 P. v. Ramos CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CORDERO RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant. | B193997 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA071775-03) |
APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jack P. Hunt, Judge. Affirmed.
Elisa A. Brandes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
Appellant Cordero Ramos appeals from the trial courts denial of his motion to vacate a judgment of conviction and set aside his plea bargain. We affirm.
APPELLANTS CRIMES AND PLEA BARGAIN
Shortly before midnight on July 15, 2005, appellant and two accomplices robbed at gunpoint Michael Cisneros and Arah Parker when Cisneros and Parker were parked on Mount Baldy road in the San Gabriel Mountains. During the robbery, appellant used a gun. A few weeks later, police arrested appellant and his accomplices.
The People filed an amended information charging appellant and his accomplices with second degree robbery. The People also alleged (but later dismissed as part of a plea bargain) that appellant had received stolen property and participated in the armed carjacking and robbery of two other victims on August 1, 2005.
In October 2005, appellant pleaded no contest to two counts of robbery and admitted the gun use enhancement in a plea bargain fixing his maximum possible prison sentence at 16 years. He and his lawyer signed a form detailing the plea and sentence, and the court found he knowingly waived his rights to trial by jury, confrontation, subpoena witnesses, and self-incrimination. As part of the plea bargain, the court dismissed the carjacking, robbery, and receiving stolen property charges that did not involve victims Cisneros and Parker. On October 13, 2005, the court sentenced appellant to 16 years in state prison.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 23, 2005, which the clerk of the superior court rejected as untimely. The stated ground for appellants attempted appeal was his claim that he had been wrongfully convicted of a crime I did not commit. The D.A. tampered with evidence to help towards his conviction. In his request for certificate of probable cause attached to his notice of appeal, he stated he entered into the plea agreement fearing for my life, although he did not describe the reason for his fear. According to his request for a certificate of probable cause, the evidence against him had been incorrect because Cisneros and Parker testified they were robbed on July 14, but the district attorney and the Peoples charging information told the court the robberies took place on July 15; appellant was mistaken, however, because in fact both victims testified they were robbed a few minutes before midnight on July 15. Presumably because of the untimeliness of the notice of appeal as well as there being no indication in the record that appellant received a certificate of probable cause, the appeal was not pursued.
In August 2006, appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside his plea bargain. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court concluded it did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion, but even if it did, the motion was untimely and lacked merit. Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial courts ruling.
In November 2006, we appointed appellate counsel to represent appellant. On May 30, 2007, counsel filed a brief stating she could not find any arguable issues for appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We sent a letter to appellant on May 30th inviting him to submit a letter or brief raising any issues he wished us to consider. He has not filed anything in response. We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issues for appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
COOPER, P. J.
FLIER, J.
Publication courtesy of San Diego free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Santee Property line attorney.
