People v. Rodriguez CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 4/9/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085931

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN333477, SCN340334) PEDRO LUIS RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,

David Danielsen,* Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is an appeal from the decision in a resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 held in February 2025. At the completion of the hearing, the court ordered the misdemeanor sentences to run concurrently,

* Retired Judge of San Diego Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. thus reducing Appellant’s sentence. The court also reduced the amount of the restitution fines. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Appellate counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Appellant the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Appellant was granted several extensions of time to file a supplemental brief, but ultimately, he failed to file a brief. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS By way of background, we are including the statement of the case contained in the Appellant’s brief. A. Case No. SCN 333477 Appellant repeatedly engaged in sexual conduct with a 16-year-old girl. B. Case No. SCN340334 While in jail awaiting trial in case No. SCN333477, and in violation of a no-contact court order, Appellant placed hundreds of phone calls to the victim. He e-mailed her asking her to recant her allegations and to lie at the preliminary examination and trial in that case. With the assistance of his brother, he undertook a scheme to illegally obtain unemployment benefits. DISCUSSION

2 As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the fines were properly imposed. 2. Whether the court abused its discretion by not further reducing Appellant’s sentence. We have reviewed the record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Appellant on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

DO, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3