People v. Ramirez
| Decision Date | 25 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | S099844 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Juan Villa RAMIREZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
Snedeker, Smith & Short, Lisa R. Short and Michael R. Snedeker for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Sean M. McCoy and Leanne Le Mon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Juan Villa Ramirez1 was convicted of a variety of crimes on three separate occasions. Those sets of convictions were as follows: 1. Robbery of Leonel Paredes, kidnapping during the commission of carjacking and for purposes of ransom, during which Paredes was exposed to a substantial likelihood of death, and three enhancements for personal firearm use;2 2. Robbery and kidnapping during the commission of carjacking of Juan Carlos Ramirez;3 3. Carjacking, kidnapping with intent to commit robbery, and first degree murder of Chad Yarborough, with special circumstances for killing during kidnapping and carjacking, and three personal firearm use enhancements.4
In addition to these offenses, separate counts charging methamphetamine possession and possession of a firearm under the influence of that drug5 were bifurcated. Following the capital trial a separate jury convicted defendant of the drug offenses, but acquitted him on the weapons allegation. The jury returned a verdict of death for the murder and that sentence was imposed. In addition, the court imposed consecutive sentences of life without the possibility of parole for the Paredes kidnapping for ransom; two terms of life with the possibility of parole for the kidnappings of Ramirez and Yarborough; and a total consecutive determinate term of 21 years. Additional determinate terms and orders were imposed and are not challenged in this appeal. Sentences on all counts except the murder were stayed pending appeal.
We affirm the judgment.
Late on October 4, 1997, Paredes parked his car near his apartment in Lamont and was approached by three men. Defendant placed a shotgun on his chest, Efrain Garza pointed a revolver, and the third man held a knife below his ear. Defendant demanded Paredes's car keys, saying he would be hurt if he did not cooperate. Duct tape was placed over his eyes and mouth, and used to secure his hands and feet. Garza took his keys and wallet.6 Paredes was ordered to lie in the back seat of his car and was held at knifepoint as the car drove off. Paredes could tell from the voices around him that defendant was the driver.
After driving for about 15 minutes, Paredes was moved to the trunk. After another 10 or 15 minutes, the car was parked in a garage. Paredes remained locked in the trunk for four to five hours while the men tried to negotiate a $500 ransom from Paredes's cousin and uncle. During that time, the trunk was occasionally opened. Paredes was hit in the face, held with a shotgun to his neck, and forced to talk to his uncle on the phone. At some point, the abductors drove to another location with Paredes still in the trunk. The abductors left in a second car, warning Paredes not to call the police or his family would be harmed. Paredes managed to remove the tape, open the trunk, call his uncle, and report the incident to police.7 One latent fingerprint was lifted from the trunk lid of Paredes's car. It did not match defendant.
On October 14, 1997, defendant was at Efrain Garza's house in Lamont, along with Garza, Hector Valenzuela, Freddy De La Rosa, Daniel Quintana, and defendant's cousin, Carlos Rosales. Juan Carlos8 arrived at the house next door to purchase drugs from someone named "Shannon." Valenzuela and De La Rosa approached him and Valenzuela demanded a ride at gunpoint. Valenzuela got into the cab of Juan Carlos's truck while De La Rosa got in the back. Juan Carlos drove about a half mile to a field, where Valenzuela and De La Rosa took personal belongings, including his watch, necklace, and a charm with "Juan" engraved on it.
The three men got back in the truck and De La Rosa drove. Near Shannon's house, De La Rosa hit a parked car and told Juan Carlos to drive. The other four individuals who had been at Garza's house were walking down the street, and De La Rosa called out to them to get in the truck. Those men were defendant, Garza, Quintana, and Rosales.
Valenzuela pointed a pistol at Juan Carlos and told him to drive to an orchard. Upon arrival Valenzuela then ordered Juan Carlos out of the truck. Defendant, Valenzuela, De La Rosa, and Garza got out also. They demanded money, but Juan Carlos denied having any. When a search of his wallet proved otherwise, the men beat him. Defendant asked for the gun so he could kill him. Defendant said he was the devil, and that if Juan Carlos said
anything, defendant would cut off parts of his body and shove them in his mouth. Defendant took the victim's belt and struck him on the back with it. The beating continued, after which defendant bound the victim with rope. After the men left in his truck, Juan Carlos untied himself, walked to a friend's house, and called the police.
Rosales was called by the prosecution and corroborated much of the victim's testimony. He admitted that he and the others got into the truck at De La Rosa's invitation. Valenzuela had a gun.9 At the orchard, Rosales stayed in the truck with Quintana, while the others got out. Garza pulled out a pistol-grip 12-gauge firearm. Valenzuela took some money, a belt, and jewelry. Valenzuela was angry because Juan Carlos had lied about having no money. Valenzuela and Garza both hit Juan Carlos with their guns, and defendant, along with De La Rosa and Garza, beat him. Juan Carlos was then dragged toward the orchard and tied up. At the time of trial Rosales's memory for detail was unclear. He had testified at the preliminary hearing that defendant beat Juan Carolos with a belt and later bound the victim with rope defendant took from the truck.
Quintana also testified for the prosecution. He said that everyone who got out of the truck at the orchard beat Juan Carlos. Although Quintana had said in an interview that defendant was the first to hit the victim, his recollection at trial was that they all assaulted him at the same time. After the beating, defendant got a rope from the truck and bound the victim. Quintana believed that defendant was the oldest of the six perpetrators, and that he and Garza were the leaders of the group.
The attackers left Juan Carlos in the orchard then drove to a park where Valenzuela divided the stolen money. Each man received about $10. Valenzuela kept the necklace, but gave the charm with "Juan" engraved on it to defendant.
After dividing up Juan Carlos's property, the group stopped at a food truck. Afterward, defendant, along with Rosales and Quintana, went first to Rosales's house then on to Quintana's, where Garza and Willie Santiago met them. Defendant had been using methamphetamine all day and began drinking at Quintana's.
The murder occurred on the same day as the Juan Carlos crimes. It arose against the backdrop of conflict between groups who lived in two communities outside Bakersfield: the city of Arvin and unincorporated Lamont. While defendant and his associates were at Quintana's, defendant cleaned a Tec-9 handgun, loaded it, and wrapped it in a shirt.11 About two hours later, Garza said he saw Chad's truck. As described more fully below, there had been animosity between defendant's family and Chad. Defendant and Garza went outside and approached the truck. Rosales testified he heard the sound of a gun cocking and saw Chad's younger brother get out of the truck. After Garza got in on the passenger side and defendant got behind the wheel, the truck drove off.
In October 1997, Chad and Brent went to Arvin High School. Chad was a senior and Brent a freshman. Chad would drive them to and from school in his white truck. On October 14, the brothers went to football practice, and visited Chad's girlfriend, Carolina Castro. Brent described what transpired as Chad drove away from Castro's home. Two Hispanic men confronted them in the middle of the road. When they waived Chad down he stopped and rolled down his window. The men talked like they knew each other, but Brent did not hear what they said.
Defendant said his name was Loco. The other man pulled out a gun and ordered both brothers to get out of the truck, but defendant told Chad to stay put. Chad said, "I'm Cool," or words to the effect that everything was okay. The other man told Brent to sit on the curb. Both men got in the truck with Chad between them. Defendant was driving. A large man approached and told Brent to stay on the curb and say nothing. A second man stood nearby. Brent sat on the curb for 30 to 45 minutes, until the men left. He then ran to Castro's house and told her to call the police because his brother had been kidnapped.
The same evening, the Yarborough family searched for Chad. At around 1:30 a.m., his uncle found Chad's body in a field. He wore only his underwear. Black electrical tape covered his eyes and part of his nose; shoelaces bound his hands behind his back. Autopsy surgeon Donna Brown discovered three fatal gunshot wounds to the head. Dr. Brown opined that if the weapon had been fully automatic, the entry wounds would have been closer together and all on the same side of the head. The absence of stippling meant the weapon was at least two feet away when it was fired. Chad's body had scratches and irritation on his knees, chest, right arm, and lower leg. One of his fingers was swollen. The imprint of gravel indicated he had collapsed to his knees at some point.
Investigators found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zarazua
...... "harmless under any standard of prejudice.". (People v. Smith (2015) 61 Cal.4th 18, 51-52.) There. is no indication the jury interpreted the prosecutor's. failure to use Zarazua's correct pronouns "in the. most damaging light" (People v. Ramirez (2022). 13 Cal.5th 997, 1130). . 6. . or that the misgendering influenced the verdict. (Chapman. v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.) Finally, there is. no realistic possibility Zarazua would have obtained a more. favorable result but for the ......