Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Ramirez

P. v. Ramirez

Filed 1/16/07 P. v. Ramirez CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

ANDREW R. RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

B188486

x-ref. B169822

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. PA 040735)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Burt Pines, Judge. Reversed with directions.

________

Waldemar D. Halka, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Deborah J. Chuang and Mary Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________

We review this case for the second time. The first jury convicted Andrew Ramirez of five counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), and the court imposed a 14-year sentence. On Ramirez' first appeal we reversed the judgment because â€

Description	Court review this case for the second time. The first jury convicted Andrew Ramirez of five counts of committing a lewd act on a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code, S 288, subd. (a)), and the court imposed a 14 year sentence. On Ramirez' first appeal court reversed the judgment because "the trial court failed to conduct an adequate hearing into whether a juror should have been dismissed" and remanded for a new trial. (People v. Ramirez (Sept. 30, 2004) B169822 [non pub. opn.] (Ramirez I).) On retrial, the jury again convicted Ramirez of the same five counts, and the judge also imposed a 14-year sentence. Ramirez appeals, raising several challenges to his convictions and sentence. Court agree with Ramirez' contention that the court prejudicially erred in precluding him from introducing exculpatory portions of his testimony from the first trial after permitting the prosecution to introduce other portions as admissions. Court reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial. Because of court's conclusion, court do not discuss Ramirez' other contentions.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.