People v. Rodriguez CA2/6

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 1, 2024
DocketB329015
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Rodriguez CA2/6 (People v. Rodriguez CA2/6) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Rodriguez CA2/6, (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Filed 2/1/24 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B329015 (Super. Ct. No. PA099226) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

PAUL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

The information alleged that Paul Rodriguez violated Vehicle Code, section 10851, subdivision (a), driving or taking a vehicle without consent, with a prior conviction for the same offense. (Pen. Code, § 666.5.) It also alleged a prior “strike” conviction. (Id., §§ 667, 1070.12.) Pursuant to a plea agreement, Rodriguez pled no contest and admitted the prior strike. As agreed, the trial court sentenced Rodriguez to the middle term of three years, doubled to six years because of the prior strike. The court gave Rodriguez custody credits of 124 days actual custody plus 124 days conduct credits for a total of 248 days. Rodriguez appeals. We appointed counsel to represent Rodriguez in this appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On October 16, 2023, we advised Rodriguez by mail that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. We received no reply. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that Rodriguez’s attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

CODY, J.

2 David Walgren, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Wende
600 P.2d 1071 (California Supreme Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Rodriguez CA2/6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-ca26-calctapp-2024.