People v. Ramirez

• Docket Number: H050583
• Decision Date: 22 November 2023
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLEN ALLEN RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GLEN ALLEN RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

H050583

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

November 22, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC120254)

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2002, defendant Glen Allen Ramirez was convicted by jury of spousal rape by force (former Pen. Code, § 262, subd. (a)(1)),^[1] forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2)), and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). Various allegations were also found true, including that he suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 30 years, which included a five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction.

In 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recommended that defendant's sentence be recalled and that he be resentenced pursuant to then section 1170, subdivision (d). The recommendation by the Secretary of

2

the CDCR was based on a change in the law that gives a trial court the discretion to strike a prior serious felony enhancement (see §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1385). After briefing by the parties and a hearing, the trial court declined to recall and resentence defendant.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to recall and resentence him because the court failed to make the requisite finding that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense. He also argues that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing a super strike offense.

For reasons that we will explain, we will affirm the order denying recall and resentencing of defendant

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Offenses

The victim was defendant's estranged wife. The couple had been together for approximately five years and had been married for 14 months. During the course of their relationship, defendant was often physically abusive of the victim. The couple had frequently broken up over defendant's abuse and later reunited. At the time of the offenses, the couple was separated.

In August 2001, the victim arrived home to find defendant in her apartment. She told him to leave. Defendant grabbed the victim's wrists and pushed her into her bedroom and onto the bed, facing up. When the victim tried to free herself, defendant punched her hard underneath her right eye. The victim felt her face instantly swell up. Later, defendant attempted to stab the victim in the knee with a knife. He then grabbed her wrists, took her to the kitchen where he obtained a different knife that was seven or eight inches with a pointed tip, and took her back to the bedroom. Defendant ordered the victim to orally copulate him. She refused. When defendant attempted to force her to orally copulate him, she put her hand in front of her mouth. At that point, defendant put the knife to the victim's face and repeated his demand that she orally copulate him. The

3

victim complied. Defendant subsequently threatened to stab the victim if she did not remove her clothes. After the victim removed her clothes, defendant raped her and then stabbed her in the thigh. Defendant subsequently lifted the knife above his head and her face and told her that she was going to die. The victim cried and repeatedly told him not to do it. The victim had children from a previous marriage. She referred to her children, including saying their names. Defendant's face changed, and he brought his arm down.

B. Verdicts and Sentencing

In 2002, a jury convicted defendant of spousal rape by force (former § 262, subd. (a)(1)), forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)(2)), and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)). Various allegations were found true, including that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury and/or personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon as to certain counts, that he suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that he suffered a prior strike conviction.

According to the probation report, defendant had at least nine prior felony convictions and at least 34 prior misdemeanor convictions. His prior felony convictions included second degree burglary, escape by a misdemeanant, vehicle theft, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant also had a prior strike conviction for a 1983 robbery in which he demanded money from a donut shop employee while pretending to have a weapon under his shirt. Defendant's misdemeanor convictions included two convictions for inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, four convictions for battery on a spouse, and convictions for violation of a domestic violence order, false imprisonment, vehicle theft, vandalism, and being under the influence of a controlled substance. Defendant was on probation at the time of the instant offenses.

Defendant was originally sentenced for the current offenses in 2002 to an indeterminate term of 80 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 18 years. Following a successful appeal regarding a sentencing issue, defendant was resentenced in

4

2004 to an indeterminate term of 50 years to life consecutive to a determinate term of 30 years, which included a five-year enhancement for the prior serious felony conviction.

C. CDCR Recommendation for Recall of Sentence and Resentencing

The Secretary of the CDCR sent a letter to the trial court dated January 9, 2020, stating that defendant had been sentenced in 2002^[2] and that his sentence included a prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The Secretary explained that the law had since changed to allow trial courts the discretion to strike a prior serious felony enhancement (see §§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1385). The Secretary recommended that defendant's sentence be recalled and that he be resentenced in accordance with section 1170, former subdivision (d) (now section 1172.1). Various documents were attached to the letter, including documents reflecting defendant's participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous and his prison work assignments.

D. Trial Court's First Order Denying Recall and Resentencing

In February 2020, the trial court declined to recall defendant's sentence. The court indicated that although a legislative change had given courts the discretion to strike the punishment for a serious felony enhancement, defendant's case had been final for many years by that time. The court stated that it was declining to use its authority to recall defendant's sentence "simply to avoid the lack of retroactivity" regarding the discretion to strike the punishment for the enhancement.

5

E. Appeal Regarding First Order Denying Recall of Sentence

Defendant appealed, and this court reversed the trial court's order. (People v. Ramirez (Sept. 7, 2021, H047929) [nonpub. opn.].) This court determined that "[a]lthough the impetus for the CDCR's recommendation under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) was the possibility that an ameliorative change in the law could be applied to [defendant's] case, the letter reflected the CDCR's individualized recommendation, based on an assessment of multiple factors, that [defendant's] sentence should be recalled." (Ibid.) This court remanded the matter to the trial court to exercise its discretion under then section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to recall and resentence defendant.

F. Briefing by the Parties After Remand

After the matter was remanded to the trial court, defendant filed a memorandum of points and authorities in support of recall and resentencing. Defendant contended that although he had suffered a conviction for forced oral copulation, a sexually violent offense, the incident was remote in time and his "growth in prison and his deep awareness of his addiction issues, strongly indicate that he would pose no threat to anyone, were he to return to society." Defendant argued that the court should dismiss his prior strike conviction, his prior serious felony conviction, and the allegation that he personally committed great bodily injury.

Defendant also submitted documents in support of his request. The documents included a letter acknowledging the offenses against the victim and a separate letter of apology to the victim. He provided certificates reflecting his participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. Defendant also completed a written relapse prevention plan. Other documents reflected his work in prison as a barber and a porter, as well as his attendance or participation in various programs such as victim awareness. Defendant provided documents showing that he had been disciplined in prison for incidents between 2004 and 2008, but that he had not received any serious discipline

6

since then. Further, according to defendant, the documents showed that he was at the lowest security facility that was possible for a life prisoner serving a sentence for sexual assault-related crimes.

The prosecutor filed written opposition to the requests for resentencing and to dismiss the prior strike conviction. The prosecutor also provided copies of the reporter's transcript of the victim's testimony from trial, the probation report that was prepared in connection with defendant's original sentencing, and the reporter's transcript of the original sentencing hearing. The prosecutor recounted the facts of the 2001 incident leading to defendant's convictions for spousal rape by force, forcible oral copulation, and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse. The prosecutor contended that defendant had a long history of domestic violence against the victim, including multiple convictions from 1995 through 1998 and 2001 for hitting, slapping, and punching her. The prosecutor also...