P. v. Ramirez CA4/3
Defendant Jessie Antonio Ramirez was convicted of second degree robbery and simple assault. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred by denying his pretrial motion under Penal Code section 995 on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to hold him to answer to gang sentencing enhancement allegations. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant argues that he suffered prejudice when the jury heard evidence of his membership in a criminal street gang.
We affirm. There was ample evidence presented at the preliminary hearing supporting the trial court’s decision to hold defendant to answer on the gang sentencing enhancement allegations. The jury’s ultimate not true findings on those allegations does not prove the allegations were improperly given to the jury to decide.
Comments on P. v. Ramirez CA4/3