P. v. Ramirez
Filed 8/10/06 P. v. Ramirez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CESARIO RAMIREZ et al., Defendants and Appellants. | E037613 (Super.Ct.No. RIF107511) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Vilia G. Sherman, Judge. Affirmed.
Denise M. Rudasill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Cesario Ramirez.
Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Fernando Ramirez.
Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jose Corrales.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Gil P. Gonzalez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Garrett Beaumont, Senior Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After a jury trial, defendants Cesario Ramirez (Cesario), Fernando Ramirez (Fernando), and Jose Corrales each were convicted of two counts of premeditated attempted murder and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 246.[1] The jury found true allegations that a principal intentionally discharged a firearm in the attempted murders and that all of the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang.
The court imposed the same sentence on each defendant: For each attempted murder count, seven years to life, plus a consecutive 20-year firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivisions (c) and (e)(1), the terms for the two counts to run concurrently. The court stayed sentence for the remaining count for shooting at an occupied vehicle, under Penal Code section 654.
On appeal, defendants argue the trial court applied the wrong standard in denying their new trial motion and should have imposed straight life terms instead of seven years to life for the attempted murder counts. Cesario also argues the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts against him. We affirm the judgment.
I
FACTS
A. The Shooting
As this appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we recite the facts in some detail.
Dodd Street was a turf-based street gang in the Mira Loma area of Riverside County. Jesus Vargas was a member of Dodd Street. Cuatro Flats was a rival street gang operating in the same area, with about 25 members. Defendants were members of Cuatro Flats.
In December 2002, several members of the Ramirez family were living in a house at 9257 51st Street (Ramirez house). Esteban Ramirez (Esteban), the brother of Cesario and Fernando, lived there. So did Matilde Ramirez (Matilde), their sister. The Ramirez house was in Dodd Street's turf.
On the morning of Saturday, December 28, 2002, Vargas was giving Mathew Dudone a ride in Vargas's mother's van. Vargas and Dudone were good friends, but Dudone was not a gang member.
Vargas decided to take a detour down 51st Street. He knew defendants from middle school, and he knew the Ramirezes lived somewhere around 51st Street. He also knew all three defendants were from the Cuatro Flats gang. He and defendants had a feud against each other because they were from different gangs.
Vargas and Dudone came to a house with five to seven men with bald heads standing in front of it. Vargas slowed down, said, â€
