Opinion
H045267
08-01-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC CHRISTOPHER RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1627962)
Defendant Eric Christopher Ramos appeals from a judgment of conviction entered after he pleaded no contest to possession of a weapon while in custody (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted that he had committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) and that he had a prior strike conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison. Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening 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
On December 16, 2015, defendant was in custody in the Santa Clara County jail. An anonymous inmate informed a correctional officer that defendant was in possession of a weapon. The following day, sheriff deputies went to defendant's cell. Prior to searching him, they asked if he had any contraband. After defendant admitted that he had contraband concealed in his underwear, he was instructed to remove it. Defendant provided a jail-manufactured weapon, which was approximately six inches long. The weapon had a one-quarter inch sharpened metal tip.
After defendant was advised of his rights, he stated that he was a "Northerner" and "Northerners" directed him to hold onto the weapon. He received the weapon from "Droopy," another inmate in the jail. Defendant also stated that he was given the weapon because he had been designated the "squad leader." He explained that the squad leader is responsible for the weapon and is the lookout in the dorm.
Droopy told the deputies that he was not a gang member and denied providing the weapon.
The statement of facts is taken from the probation report. --------
In February 2016, defendant was charged in a felony complaint with possession of a weapon while in custody (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a)). It was also alleged that defendant had committed the offense for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)) and that he had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12).
At the change of plea hearing in September 2016, the trial court stated that defendant would be sentenced to a six-year prison term pursuant to a negotiated agreement. Defendant 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. The trial court advised defendant of the maximum and minimum sentence that could be imposed as well as the immigration consequences of his plea. Defendant was also advised of his rights to a preliminary hearing, to a jury trial, to cross-examine witnesses, to testify, to present a defense, and to remain silent. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and waived them. Both the prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the pleas. Defendant pleaded no contest to the charged offense and admitted one prior strike and the gang enhancement.
In September 2017, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years in state prison. He was given 1,088 days of credit. The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $1,800, a court security fee of $40, and a criminal conviction assessment fee of $30.
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.
/s/_________
Mihara, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Elia, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.