Court Opinion

ID: 9929063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 18:03:20.988059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:06.299261
License: Public Domain

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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.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