Opinion
D077310
03-10-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHAEL RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. RIF1205278) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. The request for judicial notice is granted. David L. Polsky, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. In the underlying case, Michael Ramirez was convicted in 2015 of a number of offenses including first degree murder with special circumstances of murder in the commission of robbery and kidnapping. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subds. (a)(17)(A) and (a)(17)(B)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Ramirez was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 10 years. We affirmed Ramirez's convictions and sentence in case No. D072632, filed March 19, 2018. We grant Ramirez's request to take judicial notice of our opinion. (People v. Arredondo (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 493.)
In 2019, Ramirez filed a petition under section 1170.95 (Senate Bill No. 1437) contending he was not eligible for a felony murder conviction and that his case should be resentenced. The trial court appointed counsel and conducted a hearing. The court concluded Ramirez was an active participant in the murder and that the jury verdict on the special circumstances required the jury to find Ramirez had an intention to kill or was an active participant in the killing.
Ramirez has again filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Ramirez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the offenses and Ramirez's participation are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. Suffice to note the facts demonstrate that Ramirez was an active participant in the kidnapping, robbery, beating, and killing of the victim.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue he considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in summarily denying the petition for resentencing.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Ramirez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. BENKE, J.