Filed 2/9/22 P. v. Rodgers CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Larry Lee Rodgers pleaded no contest to kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, criminal threats, and vehicle theft. The trial court imposed a total term of nine years in state prison. Rodgers’s appeal from the judgment of conviction is currently pending and awaiting briefing in case number H047232.[1]

After Rodgers filed the notice of appeal from the conviction, the trial court ordered him to make various victim restitution payments. Rodgers now appeals from the restitution order.

We appointed counsel, who filed an opening brief stating the case and the facts but raising no specific issues. We notified Rodgers of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. He responded with a letter effectively asserting his innocence and claiming he had no notice of the restitution claims.

We have reviewed the entire record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). (See also People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 (Kelly).) We conclude there is no arguable issue in this appeal (case No. H047762), and we will affirm the judgment.

1. Factual and Procedural Background

1. Procedural Background

The prosecution charged Rodgers with six counts: count 1—kidnapping (Pen. Code, § 207, subd. (a))[2]; counts 2 and 3—assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); counts 4 and 5—criminal threats (§ 422); and count 6—theft or unauthorized use of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)). The prosecution alleged firearm enhancements on all counts. (§§ 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b).) The prosecution further alleged Rodgers had suffered a prior prison term conviction (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and that he committed the offenses while released on bail in another case (§ 12022.1).

Rodgers pleaded no contest to all counts as charged and admitted the allegations. In March 2019, the trial court imposed a total term of nine years in prison.

In November 2019, the trial court held a restitution hearing. Counsel for Rodgers waived his appearance. As to two of the claims for victim restitution—$2,876.86 and $800.00—defense counsel stipulated to the amounts. Counsel informed the court, “I have discussed this in detail with Mr. Rodgers.”

Counsel then contested a claim for $971.14 to the California Victim Compensation Board. The claim was for a reimbursement to the California Victim Compensation Board for a payment it made to one of the victims for the installation of a home security system. The trial court found it authorized under section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J). Accordingly, the court ordered the payment, in addition to the stipulated claims.

2. Facts of the Offenses

According to evidence presented at the preliminary hearing, Rodgers had been dating C.T. for several years. The couple fought often, and Rodgers choked C.T. on multiple occasions.

After midnight one morning, Rodgers called C.T. at home. He was upset and yelling, and he asked her about a bag. She found the bag and agreed to drive somewhere to meet him with it. When they met, he pulled out a gun, held it to her head, threatened to kill her, and told her to drive. After driving for a while, they stopped at a 7-Eleven, and Rodgers followed C.T. into the store. C.T. believed Rodgers kept the gun trained on her the whole time.

After the couple returned to the car, C.T. managed to get away and went back into the 7-Eleven, where she asked the clerk to call 911. Rodgers re-entered the 7-Eleven to try to force C.T. to leave, but the clerk intervened. Rodgers then drove away in C.T.’s car.

2. Discussion

We have reviewed the entire record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106. We find no arguable issue on appeal, and we conclude appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, at p. 441.)

As for the contested restitution payment, the court properly found it authorized under section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3)(J), which mandates compensation for “[e]xpenses to install or increase residential security incurred related to a violation of Section 273.5, or a violent felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5, including, but not limited to, a home security device or system, or replacing or increasing the number of locks.” (§ 273.5, subd. (f)(3)(J).) We find no arguable claim of error in the restitution order.

Rodgers’s merit letter argues he did not have notice of the claim, but he was represented by counsel at the restitution hearing, and she stated she had discussed the claims with him. Rodgers’s remaining arguments essentially assert his innocence, mostly by challenging the victim’s credibility. But he pleaded no contest to all counts; he has no grounds to assert innocence in this appeal.

For the reasons above, we will affirm the judgment.

3. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

_______________________________

Greenwood, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

Grover, J.

________________________________

Lie, J.

People v. Rodgers

H047762

[1] We granted Rodgers’s request for judicial notice of the record filed in that appeal.

[2] Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.