legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Rodriguez CA6

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Rodriguez CA6
By
05:30:2017

Filed 4/21/17 P. v. Rodriguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
H043841
(Monterey County
Super. Ct. No. SS160996)
Defendant Michael Anthony Rodriguez pleaded no contest to felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69) and misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). As called for by the plea agreement, the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions, including gang conditions, to which defense counsel unsuccessfully objected. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $450 restitution fine. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, which indicated that his appeal was based on his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.
Defendant’s counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues are raised and asked this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified defendant of his right to submit a written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so.
After independent review of the record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal. As required by People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, we will provide “a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case, the crimes of which defendant was convicted, and the punishment imposed.” We will further include information about aspects of the trial court proceedings that might become relevant in future proceedings. (Id. at p. 112.)
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2016, the Monterey County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with resisting an executive officer (§ 69); criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)); bringing marijuana into the jail (§ 4573, subd. (a)); and petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)) from Sports Authority. The complaint alleged defendant committed each of the charged crimes on June 15, 2016.
Defendant entered into a plea agreement on June 30, 2016. Pursuant to that agreement, he pleaded no contest to resisting an executive officer and petty theft in exchange for felony probation. Defendant acknowledged in court that he took something from Sports Authority without paying and attempted by means of force to deter or prevent an executive officer from performing his duties.
The probation officer’s report recommended gang-related probation conditions because defendant had “advised jail staff that he has been a Sure[ñ]o gang member for the past 20 years, and i[s] part of the ‘Bassett Hood,’ located in Los Angeles County. His offense involved threatening to kill a police officer,” and, in making that threat, he stated “I’m from L.A.” The report also recommended a restitution fine of $450.
At a sentencing hearing on July 26, 2016, defense counsel objected to the recommended gang conditions on the ground that defendant is not a gang member, has no gang tattoos, and has never been charged with or convicted of any gang offense. Without commenting on that objection, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions, including the recommended gang conditions. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $450 restitution fine, as well as other fines and fees.
Defendant timely appealed based on his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.
II. DISCUSSION
Having examined the entire record, we conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.




_________________________________
ELIA, J.

WE CONCUR:



_______________________________
RUSHING, P. J.



_______________________________
PREMO, J.





Description Defendant Michael Anthony Rodriguez pleaded no contest to felony resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69) and misdemeanor petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)). As called for by the plea agreement, the trial court placed defendant on probation for three years subject to various conditions, including gang conditions, to which defense counsel unsuccessfully objected. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $450 restitution fine. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, which indicated that his appeal was based on his sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 8 views. Averaging 8 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale