Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 4, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Ramirez CA2/7

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B341528

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (9)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/4/26 P. v. Ramirez CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B341528

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA513279)
v.

CARLOS JOSE RAMIREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Craig E. Veals, Judge. Affirmed.
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

Carlos Jose Ramirez appeals from a judgment after he
pleaded no contest and was sentenced to two years for being a
felon in possession of a firearm. We appointed counsel to
represent Ramirez on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel
for Ramirez filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 that did not identify any arguable issues. After
independently reviewing the record, we have not identified any
either. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

On February 26, 2023 Officer Jose Hernandez and his
partner observed Ramirez using his cell phone while stopped at a
red light. When the light turned green, the officers activated
their lights and sirens. The officers saw Ramirez “making
movements within the vehicle as [if] he was attempting to conceal
something.”
Ramirez drove into a nearby shopping center parking lot
and parked the car. Although the officers told Ramirez to stay in
the vehicle, Ramirez exited the vehicle while talking on the cell
phone. The officers believed Ramirez “seemed very nervous” and
heard Ramirez say “baby” and that he had “been beat up before.”
The officers handcuffed Ramirez and walked him over to their
vehicle.
After the officers patted him down, Hernandez shined a
light into the vehicle and saw the muzzle of a semiautomatic
firearm visible on the floorboard. Hernandez opened the trunk

1 We draw the facts from the transcripts of the hearing on
Ramirez’s motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5 as
well as the preliminary hearing.

2
and illuminated the interior “to make sure there’s no one in the
trunk.” Hernandez then opened the rear door of the car and
removed the firearm from the floorboard. The firearm was found
to be a loaded semiautomatic Glock handgun in good working
condition. After being admonished with the Miranda2 warnings,
Ramirez told the police he had borrowed the firearm from a
friend after having been shot.
On November 16, 2023 Ramirez was charged by
information with one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm (Pen. Code,3 § 29800, subd. (a)(1).) The information
further alleged Ramirez had suffered a prior strike conviction
within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-
(j), 1170.12). Ramirez was also alleged to have violated the terms
of his probation in case No. BA507133, in which he had been
convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 for driving
or taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent.
On April 29, 2024 Ramirez brought a motion under section
1538.5 to suppress the firearm, a magazine, and 10 rounds of live
ammunition seized from Ramirez’s car on the basis that “[l]aw
enforcement contacted, seized, detained, and/or searched
defendant and/or his property without a warrant and therefore
the police action is presumptively unreasonable and unlawful.”
The motion indicated Ramirez was challenging the search of the
vehicle and its contents; at the hearing Ramirez’s counsel
confirmed Ramirez was not challenging whether there was
probable cause for the initial detention. The trial court denied
the motion on May 1, 2025 because the “firearm was located in a

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
3 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3
position where it would visible” by looking through the car
window.
On May 6, 2024 the trial court denied Ramirez’s motion to
appoint new counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118
but, on August 22, 2024, accepted his request to represent
himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1976) 422 U.S. 806.
On September 6, 2024 the People indicated their current
plea bargain offer was for two years (the middle term) doubled
based on Ramirez’s prior strike. The court indicated Ramirez
could enter an open plea and the court would impose a two-year
sentence and terminate probation in the probation matter.
Ramirez agreed and, in addition to pleading no contest to the
present offense, admitted he was previously convicted of a prior
strike offense, and also admitted he had violated his probation in
case No. BA507133. The trial court accepted the plea, dismissed
the prior strike, and sentenced Ramirez to the middle term of two
years with 480 days total credit. The court imposed and stayed
all of the fines, fees and assessments. The court also terminated
probation in case No. BA507133.
Ramirez timely appealed on the basis that there was an
improper stop and “an illegal search.” An amended notice of
appeal requested a certificate of probable cause. Ramirez
indicated he wished to challenge the conviction under Evidence
Code section 410 (which defines “direct evidence”) because “there
is no direct evidence to prove” his guilt, and he wished to
challenge the court’s denial of his Marsden motion. The trial
court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1)(B).)

4
DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Ramirez in this appeal.
After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues.
Appointed counsel advised Ramirez on September 15, 2025 that
he could personally submit any contentions or issues he wanted
this court to consider. Appointed counsel also sent Ramirez the
record on appeal and a copy of the appellate brief. This court also
sent a letter to Ramirez on October 16, 2025 advising him that
“[w]ithin 30 days of the date of this notice, appellant may submit
a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal,
or contentions, or arguments which appellant wishes this court to
consider.” We received no response from Ramirez.
Following a judgment based on a plea of no contest, a
defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause from the
trial court to challenge certain issues on appeal, including the
validity of the plea. (§ 1237.5, subd. (b); People v. Cuevas (2008)
44 Cal.4th 374, 379; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(1).)
Without a certificate of probable cause, our review is “limited to
issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3).) As relevant here, those limited
issues of review include “(1) search and seizure issues for which
an appeal is provided under section 1538.5, subdivision (m); and
(2) issues regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for
the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the
penalty to be imposed.” (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68,
74-75; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)(A)-(B).)
We have examined the record and are satisfied appellate
counsel for Ramirez has complied with counsel’s responsibilities

5
and there are no arguable issues.4 (Smith v. Robbins (2000)
528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-
119; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

STONE, J.
We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

4 “A number of cases hold that an officer can legally view
that which is in plain sight. . . . It is well established that to look
through the window . . . and see what is plainly visible does not
constitute an illegal search.” (People v. Nazaroff (1968)
266 Cal.App.2d 229, 234; see also People v. Ramirez (2024)
104 Cal.App.5th 315, 328; People v. Tousant (2021)
64 Cal.App.5th 804, 816 [“Officers may seize evidence in plain
view ‘from a position where the officer has a right to be.’ ”].)

6