Full Opinion

Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Ramirez CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F091347 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. DF019213A, v. DF019367A, DF019444A) NARCISO RAMIREZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and Guerra, J. Defendant Narciso Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault by a prisoner with a deadly weapon and no contest to two counts of possession of a weapon while confined in prison. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years in prison pursuant defendant’s agreement with the prosecutor. Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claim of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant facts of the case. Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from him. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) While incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison for attempted voluntary manslaughter, defendant was found in possession of a sharp instrument on October 29, 2024, and February 18, 2025. He attempted to commit murder and assaulted another inmate with a deadly weapon he possessed on December 21, 2024. The District Attorney of Kern County filed three complaints. The complaint filed on April 29, 2025, in case No. DF019213A, charged defendant with possession of a weapon while confined in prison in October 2024 (Pen. Code,1 § 4502, subd. (a)). The complaint filed on June 16, 2025, in case No. DF019367A, charged defendant with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), aggravated assault by a prisoner with a deadly weapon (§ 4501, subd. (a)), and possession of a weapon while confined in prison in December 2024 (§ 4502, subd. (a)). The complaint filed on July 14, 2025, in case No. DF019444A, charged defendant with possession of a weapon while confined in 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. prison in February 2025 (§ 4502, subd. (a)). The complaints also alleged that defendant suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12) and section 667, subdivision (a).2 At his arraignment, defendant requested that he be able to represent himself.3 After questioning defendant, the court ordered an expert to examine him to assess his mental health issues but denied his request to represent himself without prejudice. Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied all enhancements. Defendant renewed his request to represent himself. When questioned by the court, defendant deflected and claimed that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and also wished to raise an issue under the Racial Justice Act (§ 745). The court granted defendant a Marsden4 hearing to address his problems with counsel but later denied his motion for a new attorney. The court also denied defendant’s motion to represent himself, without prejudice, to permit the mental health expert time to review defendant’s additional mental health records. On January 22, 2026, defendant executed a “Felony Advisement of Rights, Waiver and Plea Form” in each of his three cases (plea forms), agreeing to plead no contest to section 4502, subdivision (a) as charged in cases Nos. DF019213A and No. DF019444A, and section 4501, subdivision (a) as charged in case No. DF019367A, and admit his prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the Three Strikes law. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to a total sentence of 12 years, comprised as follows: twice the middle term of four years for the aggravated assault by a prisoner with a deadly weapon count (§§667, subd. (e), 4501, subd. (a)) and consecutive one-third of twice the middle terms of 2 Defendant was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter (§§ 664, 192). 3 See Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806, 807, 819 (discussing defendants’ right to represent themselves in criminal proceedings). 4 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 3. six years (or two years) for the two counts of possession of a weapon while confined in prison (§§ 667, subd. (e), 4502, subd. (a)). The plea forms further acknowledged that defendant had not been threatened, his pleas were freely and voluntarily made, and he understood a plea of no contest is the same as a guilty plea for all purposes. The plea forms also included an acknowledgement and waiver of constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading no contest, as well as his statutory right to a preliminary hearing, and the consequences of his plea, including receipt of the maximum penalty, fines, and restitution. In response to questioning by the trial court, defendant acknowledged he had read and understood the plea forms and was giving up those rights. Counsel stipulated to factual bases for the pleas. Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 4501, subd. (a)) and no contest to two counts of possession of a weapon while confined in prison (§ 4502, subd. (a)). Defendant admitted he suffered one prior strike conviction. The court accepted the pleas and found that defendant was guilty, he had knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights and entered his pleas, and the pleas were supported by a factual basis. On March 5, 2026, the trial court sentenced defendant to a term of eight years in prison as to case No. DF019367A, and consecutive two-year prison terms for each charge in cases Nos. DF019444A and DF019213A. The trial court also redesignated defendant’s sentence in Kings County Superior Court case No. 18CM0589 as subordinate to case No. DF019367A and resentenced him to a consecutive one-year term (representing one- third of the middle term), for a total term of 13 years. The court ordered defendant to pay $900 in restitution fines (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), $900 in suspended parole revocation restitution fines (§ 1202.45), $120 in court operations assessments (§ 1465.8), and $90 in criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on March 18, 2026. 4. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, section 13 of the abstract of judgment provides that the 13-year term pronounced by the court is to be served concurrently with any other term currently imposed. The court ordered that the sentences are “fully consecutive to any other sentence currently imposed.” When a discrepancy exists between a trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.) We shall order that the abstract of judgment be amended to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement. DISPOSITION The clerk of the superior court shall amend section 13 of the March 5, 2026 abstract of judgment to reflect that the imposed total fixed term of 13 years is to be served consecutively to any other sentence currently imposed and forward the amended abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is otherwise affirmed. 5.