People v. Rodriguez CA2/6

Filed 10/13/25 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B337821 (Super. Ct. No. KA048897) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Maria Rodriguez appeals following a Penal Code1 section 1172.75 resentencing. She contends the trial court erred by failing “to apply changes to . . . section 1170 governing the imposition of the upper term . . . .” We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKROUND In August 2000, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (§ 211). Appellant admitted a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), a strike prior (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d), 667, subd. (b)-(i)), a serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prison prior

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced appellant to 26 years in prison, including the upper term on the robbery count. At a section 1172.75 resentencing in April 2024, the court struck appellant’s prison prior enhancement but declined “to strike anything other than” that enhancement. Thus, the court resentenced appellant to 25 years in prison. DISCUSSION Appellant argues “the court ignored its responsibility to apply changes to . . . section 1170 governing the imposition of the upper term . . . .” Given section 1172.75, subdivision (d)(4) (§ 1172.75(d)(4)) creates an applicable exception to section 1170, subdivision (b)(2)’s factfinding requirement, we disagree. This appeal raises questions of law we review de novo. (Cf. People v. Allen (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 573, 578.) Section 1170, subdivision (b)(2) (§ 1170(b)(2)) provides that courts may exceed the middle term “only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify [it] and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.” (§ 1170(b)(2).) With exceptions not relevant here, section 1172.75 retroactively invalidates the prison prior enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and provides for the recall and resentencing of defendants whose judgment includes that enhancement. (§ 1172.75, subds. (a), (c).) At resentencing, the court “shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (Id., subd. (d)(2).) Critically, however, section 1172.75(d)(4) provides that “[u]nless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless