Filed 7/25/14 P. v. Ramos CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D064383
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN317271)
ADOLFO RAMOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy
M. Casserly, Judge. Affirmed as modified, with directions.
E. Elliot Adler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Stacy
Tyler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On March 27, 2013, the victim left her parked car unlocked and with the engine
running while she went inside an adjacent building. When she came back outside, she
saw Adolfo Ramos in the driver's seat of her car, backing out of the parking spot. A short
time later, the police found Ramos driving the victim's car.
Ramos waived his right to a jury trial. The court found Ramos guilty of both
grand theft of an automobile (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (d)(1); count 1) and unlawfully
driving or taking a vehicle, (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2) and further found
that he had served five prior prison terms (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668). The
court dismissed three of the prison priors and sentenced Ramos to five years in jail: the
three-year middle term for grand theft of an automobile, a stayed term (Pen. Code, § 654)
for unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle, and one year for each of the two remaining
prison priors.
Ramos appeals, contending that his conviction for unlawfully driving or taking a
vehicle must be reversed because it is a lesser included offense of grand theft of an
automobile. Respondent properly concedes the point. A defendant cannot be convicted
of grand theft of an automobile and unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle where, as
here, both offenses are based on the same act. (People v. Barrick (1982) 33 Cal.3d 115,
128.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified by striking the conviction for unlawful driving or taking
of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 2). As so modified, the judgment is
2
affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and to
forward the amended abstract of judgment to the San Diego County Sheriff's Department.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
3