People v. Rodriguez CA2/1

Filed 3/28/25 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B336788

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA048797) v.

JORGE RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Andrew C. Kim, Judge. Reversed. James S. Donnelly-Saalfield, 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 Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

After finding him ineligible, the trial court denied defendant Jorge Rodriguez’s petition pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) to recall his sentence and resentence him. On appeal, the parties agree that although section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), by its express terms, applies only to defendants sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, case law uniformly holds that the statute applies to a defendant who was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The parties also agree defendant’s 53-year- to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of a life without the possibility of parole sentence. We too agree and reverse the trial court’s order.

BACKGROUND After a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder,2 the trial court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 53 years to life. The term consisted of 25 years to life for the murder, three years for the section 186.22 gang enhancement, 25 years for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) gun enhancement. On June 20, 2023, defendant filed a petition to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard). Defendant averred he was 15 years old at the time of his crime and committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant and performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation. Defendant requested the court