People v. Rodriguez CA5

Filed 8/14/25 P. v. Rodriguez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088992 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CM5710) v.

PABLO JUAREZ RODRIGUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Michael J. Reinhart, Judge. Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Fain, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Pablo Juarez Rodriguez plead guilty to two counts of forcible rape of a child under 14 years old (Pen. Code,1 § 261, subd. (a)(2)). He was sentenced to a stipulated term of 22 years in state prison. On appeal, Rodriguez’s appointed counsel filed a no-issue brief and requested that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel and this court also advised Rodriguez of his right to file a supplemental brief for us to consider. Rodriguez did not file a response. Following our review, we requested supplemental briefing from the parties as to whether the conduct credits awarded to Rodriguez at sentencing were accurate. The parties agree that the trial court erred by treating 14 days of credit earned under section 4019.1 (“milestone credits”) as actual days of custody. They also agree that Rodriguez is entitled to 160 days of local conduct credit under the applicable limitations. Although the court correctly calculated the total number of local conduct credits, it incorrectly calculated the number of actual days in custody as 1,087 instead of 1,073. As a result, the total presentence custody credits should be 1,233 days, not 1,247. The abstract of judgment and minute order must be amended accordingly. The People further identified two additional errors in the abstract of judgment. First, the offense in count 10 occurred in 2021, not “20214” as currently reflected in the abstract of judgment under the “YEAR CRIME COMMITTED” column of section one. Second, both of Rodriguez’s convictions are violent felonies and should be marked as such in the “VIOLENT FELONY” column of section one of the abstract of judgment. We order the trial court to make these corrections. The judgment is otherwise affirmed.