Filed 7/30/26 P. v. Ruiz CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B350370
(Super. Ct. No. 2025017850)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)
v.
OMAR RUIZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Omar Ruiz appeals a judgment following his August 2025
guilty plea to conspiracy to sell and transport a controlled
substance. (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1); Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11379, subd. (a).) He admitted a gang enhancement (§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)) and admitted that he suffered three prior strike
convictions under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (d) &
(e), 1170.12, subds. (b) & (c)). The trial court sentenced Ruiz to
an aggregate prison term of 35 years to life.
In 2018, in an unrelated case, Ruiz was sentenced to 156
years to life in state prison for various crimes, including murder
(Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189), shooting at an inhabited
dwelling (id., § 246), evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2,
subd. (a)), possessing of a machine gun/assault weapon (Pen.
Code, § 245, subd. (d)(3)), possessing a firearm by a felon
(id., § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and being a felon with body armor
(id., § 31360, subd. (a)).
In 2025, while in custody, Ruiz was charged with criminal
conspiracy to sell methamphetamine for the benefit of a criminal
street gang and three prior strike convictions. At the change of
plea hearing, Ruiz appeared with counsel. He was advised of his
rights and the consequences of his plea. Ruiz waived his rights
and pleaded guilty to the charged offense, admitted three prior
strike convictions, and admitted the People’s allegations that he
conspired with another gang member to “transport
methamphetamine in Ventura County.” The trial court accepted
his plea. At sentencing, the court found that Ruiz “clearly
indicated to [court] and counsel that he was aware of what the
sentence on this case would be and he wanted to go forward with
it without further litigation or further discussion . . . .”
We appointed counsel to represent Ruiz. Counsel examined
the record and filed an opening brief requesting that this court
independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
On May 18, 2026, we sent a notice to the address on file for
Ruiz advising he had 30 days to submit any grounds for appeal,
contentions, or arguments he wished us to consider. We have
received no such submission from Ruiz.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that
Ruiz’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and
that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at
p. 443.)
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BALTODANO, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P. J.
CODY, J.
3
David M. Hirsh, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.