People v. Rodriguez CA2/3

Filed 3/26/25 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B316391

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA477061 v.

GUSTAVO ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. David R. Fields, Judge. Sentence vacated and remanded with directions.

Carlos Ramirez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court. A jury convicted Gustavo Alexander Rodriguez of several offenses, including kidnapping and making criminal threats against a four-year-old child. The court sentenced Rodriguez to an aggregate term of 13 years in prison, which included the high terms on two counts. We initially rejected Rodriguez’s contentions that his case must be remanded for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 567 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (SB 567) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 124). After granting review of our opinion, the Supreme Court decided People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416 (Salazar) and People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 (Lynch), which clarified the harmless error standards when a trial court fails to comply with AB 124 and SB 567. The Supreme Court transferred the case to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light of the new authority. Having reconsidered the case with our high court’s guidance in Salazar and Lynch, we vacate Rodriguez’s sentence and remand the case for the trial court and the parties to comply with AB 124 and SB 567. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Rodriguez dated Justin R.’s mother, Kenia R. Rodriguez was jealous of Justin’s father, Francisco Ortuna, whom Kenia