Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
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 charges arose from three incidents while Ramirez was incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison for attempted voluntary manslaughter: he was found with a sharp instrument on October 29, 2024, and February 18, 2025, and on December 21, 2024, he attempted to murder and assaulted another inmate with a deadly weapon. The Kern County District Attorney filed three complaints, each alleging a prior serious felony conviction under the Three Strikes law.
On January 22, 2026, Ramirez executed plea forms in all three cases, agreeing to plead guilty to the aggravated assault count and no contest to the two weapon possession counts, and admitting his prior strike. In exchange, the prosecutor agreed to a total sentence of 12 years: twice the middle term of four years for the aggravated assault count and consecutive one-third of twice the middle terms of six years (or two years) for the two weapon possession counts. The trial court accepted the pleas after finding they were knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
On March 5, 2026, the trial court sentenced Ramirez to eight years on the aggravated assault case and consecutive two-year terms on each weapon possession case. It also redesignated his Kings County sentence as subordinate and imposed a consecutive one-year term, for a total term of 13 years, and ordered the sentences fully consecutive to any other sentence currently imposed. Ramirez filed a timely notice of appeal on March 18, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
Appellate counsel filed an opening brief making no claim of error and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record independently under People v. Wende. Ramirez was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the opening brief, but more than 30 days elapsed and the Court of Appeal received no communication from him. Having examined the entire record, the court found no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would yield a disposition more favorable to Ramirez.
The court did find a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment. Section 13 of the abstract stated that the 13-year term would run concurrently with any other term currently imposed, but the trial court had orally ordered the sentences 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 under People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.
The Court of Appeal ordered the clerk of the superior court to amend section 13 of the March 5, 2026 abstract of judgment to reflect that the total fixed term of 13 years is to be served consecutively to any other sentence currently imposed, and to forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues, triggering the Court of Appeal's duty to independently review the entire record.
- The court found no arguable error, including no ineffective assistance of counsel, that would result in a more favorable disposition for Ramirez.
- The abstract of judgment conflicted with the oral pronouncement on whether the 13-year term ran concurrently or consecutively to other sentences.
- Because the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over the abstract under People v. Mitchell, the court ordered the abstract amended to reflect the consecutive term.
- The judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the Wende procedure in California criminal appeals: when appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no issues, the Court of Appeal must independently examine the entire record for arguable error before affirming. Here, after Ramirez declined to file a supplemental brief, that review produced no reversible error and the conviction stood.
It also reaffirms that a trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment controls over a conflicting abstract of judgment, and shows the appellate court using a limited directive to ensure the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation carries out the sentence as actually pronounced — 13 years consecutive to any other sentence.