In re Ramey

In In re Ramey (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 508, the defendant admitted he was on bail for a charged felony offense when he committed the secondary felony offense. (Id. at pp. 510-512.) However, the defendant was subsequently convicted of committing only a misdemeanor offense, rather than a felony offense, before committing the secondary offense. (Ibid.) Ramey concluded the trial court erred by dissolving its original stay of the section 12022.1 enhancement after the defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense. (Ramey, at pp. 510, 512-513.) It noted: "Like the Cheshire Cat, the felony count disappeared from sight, leaving nothing behind but a mischievous grin. There being no felony conviction, the stay of the enhancement should have become permanent." (Id. at p. 512.) Ramey rejected the People's assertion that the defendant was precluded from collaterally attacking the enhancement because he admitted he was on felony bail when his secondary offense was committed. (Id. at p. 511.) It stated: "The defendant's admission of being on bail was not the equivalent of a guilty plea. He merely stipulated to the evidentiary fact that he was on bail when he committed the second felony. " (Ibid.)