Filed 5/19/22 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CORY JAMES RODGERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H049572

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. Nos. 21CR002810,

 20CR010734, 20CR008435)

I. INTRODUCTION

As part of a global resolution of several cases, defendant Cory James Rodgers 

pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, 

subd. (a)), misdemeanor inflicting corporal injury on a spouse, cohabitant, or child’s 

parent (Pen. Code, § 273.5),1and misdemeanor battery on a spouse, cohabitant, or 

noncohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). Pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h), the trial 

court sentenced defendant to 16 months in the county jail for his violation of Vehicle 

Code section 10851, subdivision (a). The court sentenced defendant to a consecutive 

180 days in the county jail for his violation of section 273.5 and a consecutive 312 days 

in the county jail for his violation of section 243, subdivision (e)(1).

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. 

Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case but raises no issues. We 

notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 

30 days. We have received no written argument from defendant.

Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 

106 (Kelly), we have carefully reviewed the entire record and determined that there are 

no arguable issues on appeal. Following the California Supreme Court’s direction in 

Kelly, supra, at page 110, we provide a brief description of the facts and the procedural 

history of the case.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background2

1. Case No. 21CR002810

On January 20, 2021, California Highway Patrol officers responded to a report 

of a disabled vehicle on a beach in Moss Landing. When the officers arrived at 

approximately 3:50 a.m., the reporting party, Jane Doe, stated that she and defendant had 

driven onto the beach in their pickup truck. They did not realize that the tide was rising. 

The truck got stuck. Defendant became upset and walked away. Doe stated that 

defendant had rented the truck and drove the truck before it became stuck.

The truck was buried in sand up to its floorboards and had to be towed off the 

beach. Officers located rental paperwork from Gilroy Toyota with defendant’s name on 

it.

On January 25, 2021, Gilroy Toyota reported the truck stolen. One of the 

dealership’s employees told Gilroy police that defendant rented the vehicle on 

2 The facts are based on the probation report. The probation report provided the 

factual basis for defendant’s plea in case No. 21CR002810. The parties stipulated that 

there was a factual basis for defendant’s plea in case Nos. 20CR008435 and 

20CR010734.
3

January 13, 2021. Defendant was supposed to return the vehicle to the dealership the 

next day, but he failed to return it.

2. Case No. 20CR010734

On December 8, 2020 at approximately 2:03 p.m., Monterey County Sheriff 

deputies were dispatched regarding a possible kidnapping near North Monterey County 

High School. When deputies located the reporting party, Jane Doe, she stated that she 

met with defendant at a car wash in Castroville to give him money for tires. Doe got 

inside defendant’s vehicle. Defendant began driving away from Castroville. As 

defendant was driving, he became aggressive toward Doe.

Doe stated that she told defendant to take her back to the car wash, but he refused. 

Doe said that she was scared and tried to get out of the vehicle, but defendant locked the 

doors. When Doe was eventually able to open the door, defendant held onto her so she 

could not exit the vehicle. Doe broke free, but defendant exited the vehicle and grabbed 

her. Defendant punched Doe a number of times and may have kicked her. Defendant 

picked Doe up and threw her into the vehicle. Defendant drove Doe back to her vehicle 

and she drove away.

Doe stated that she had been dating defendant for three years and they had a child 

together. The deputies confirmed that Doe had two active restraining orders against 

defendant.

3. Case No. 20CR008435

On September 20, 2020, Monterey County Sheriff deputies responded to a report 

of domestic battery. The reporting party, Jane Doe, stated that she got into an argument 

with defendant while they were in a parked vehicle with their one-month-old baby in the 

backseat. At some point, defendant exited the vehicle and threw a mug filled with coffee 

at the front of the vehicle. Defendant opened the driver’s side door and took the keys 

from the ignition. Doe and defendant struggled for the keys. Defendant grabbed and 

twisted Doe’s middle finger and was able to obtain the keys. Defendant took the car keys 
4

and Doe’s cell phone and began to walk away. Doe yelled, “Somebody help me!” 

Defendant threw the keys and phone at Doe.

B. Procedural Background

In case No. 21CR002810, defendant was charged by complaint with unlawfully 

driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor violating a 

criminal protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)). In case No. 20CR010734, defendant was 

charged by information with kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)), inflicting corporal injury on a 

spouse, cohabitant, or child’s parent (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), false imprisonment by violence 

(§ 236), and misdemeanor violating a criminal protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1)), and 

it was alleged that defendant committed the felony offenses while released on bail or his 

own recognizance (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). In case No. 20CR008435, defendant was 

charged by complaint with misdemeanor battery on a spouse, cohabitant, or 

noncohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)).

As part of a global resolution including several additional cases not before us, 

defendant pleaded no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) 

in case No. 21CR002810; section 273.5 as a misdemeanor in case No. 20CR010734; 

and section 243, subdivision (e)(1) in case No. 20CR008435. The parties agreed that 

defendant would be placed on felony probation for two years. Defendant was released 

from custody pursuant to a “Cruz waiver.”3

Defendant subsequently failed to appear for sentencing and a bench warrant issued 

for his arrest. Defendant was arrested several weeks later.

In case No. 21CR002810, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 

16 months in the county jail pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h). The court 

3 A “Cruz waiver” gives a trial court the power to “withdraw its approval of the 

defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term,” if the 

defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing. (People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 

1247, 1254, fn. 5.)
5

awarded defendant zero credits and ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $300 

(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a 

$30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $4 emergency medical air 

transportation penalty (Gov. Code, § 76000.10). The court ordered defendant to pay 

victim restitution in an amount to be determined.

In case No. 20CR010734, the court sentenced defendant to a consecutive 180 days 

in the county jail and awarded defendant zero credits. The court ordered defendant to 

pay a $150 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment 

(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The 

court dismissed the remaining counts and struck the enhancements.

In case No. 20CR008435, the court sentenced defendant to a consecutive 312 days 

in the county jail and awarded defendant 312 days of credit. The court ordered defendant 

to pay a $150 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment 

(§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

III. DISCUSSION

Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that there are no 

arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.)

IV. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

DANNER, J.

WILSON, J.

People v. Rodgers

H049572