People v. Rodriguez CA4/1

Filed 9/19/24 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082688

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS320608) BENITO MANUEL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Melanie L. Skehar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, and Robin Urbanski and Namita Patel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION After trial, a jury convicted Benito Manuel Rodriguez of burglary (Pen.

Code, § 459).1 On appeal, Rodriguez contends (1) the trial court erred by sentencing him to three years of probation, and (2) the prosecution’s questions to defense witness about charges pending in an unrelated matter constituted misconduct. The People concede error as to the sentencing issue, and therefore we modify the probation term. As to the prosecutor’s questions to the character witness, we agree that the questioning was misconduct, but we conclude that it was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify reversal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2021, after discovering money had gone missing from the dresser in his bedroom, K.L. set up a camera to film his room in his absence. From the video, he learned that while he was at work, his friend Rodriguez had entered his bedroom through a patio door and had looked through his dresser. Thereafter K.L. discovered money was missing from the dresser. Upon being confronted with the video, Rodriguez texted: “I ain’t take no money besides today.” Rodriguez was charged with burglary, in violation of section 459 (count 1); grand theft, in violation of section 487 subdivision (a) (count 2); and attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime, in violation of section 136.1 subdivision (b)(1) (count 3). During motions in limine, the prosecutor noted that Rodriguez had “an open domestic violence, slash, vandalism case” based on conduct and an arrest that occurred after the burglary. The prosecutor stated that if Rodriguez testified, he would ask the court to permit him to impeach Rodriguez with the