People v. Rodriguez CA3

Filed 3/9/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102132

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F08115)

v.

ANGEL MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Convicted in 2013 of robbery with five prior strikes and serious felony convictions, defendant Angel Michael Rodriguez received a sentence of 25 years to life under the three strikes law plus 15 years (three 5-year determinate terms) for the prior serious felony enhancements. (People v. Rodriguez (Jan. 23, 2015, C074676) [nonpub. opn.] (Rodriguez I).) Defendant’s conviction became final shortly after we affirmed the judgment in Rodriguez I. He petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus in 2018 and was partially successful; in 2020, another panel of this court granted him a limited remand for resentencing to correct specific aspects of his sentence, which we detail

1

below. (In re Rodriguez (July 9, 2020; C088356) [nonpub. opn.] (Rodriguez II).) After his resentencing in 2020, defendant appealed, and we affirmed the resulting judgment after habeas corpus relief, but directed a mathematical correction to the calculation of credits. (People v. Rodriguez (May 17, 2024; C098626) [nonpub. opn.] (Rodriguez III).) Defendant now appeals from the resulting judgment. BACKGROUND Most of the facts underlying defendant’s offense and the complex legal history of this matter are not pertinent to resolution of defendant’s issues on appeal. We begin with the decision of another panel of this court regarding defendant’s 2020 habeas corpus petition, which determined the record did not establish that defendant’s 1990 second degree robbery conviction was a serious felony. (Rodriguez II, supra, C088356.) In light of this conclusion, this court remanded the matter “to strike the enhancements imposed based on petitioner’s October 19, 1990, Oregon second degree robbery conviction and to set the matter for resentencing.” (Ibid.) In December 2020, the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing as directed, which the court, the People, and defendant’s attorney agreed was for the limited purpose of striking the prior strike and prior serious felony enhancement associated with defendant’s 1990 second degree robbery conviction. (Rodriguez III, supra, C098626.) The trial court did as directed by the disposition in Rodriguez II, striking the enhancement and prior conviction associated with the 1990 robbery. (Ibid.) Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred in limiting his resentencing hearing to the subject of the limited remand. (Rodriguez III, supra, C098626.) We found no error in the trial court’s limited hearing, because of the limited nature of the remand. (Ibid.) But there had been a mathematical error in credit calculation caused by the failure to update credits, and accordingly we remanded the case once again “for the limited purpose of calculating defendant’s actual custody credits up to [defendant’s resentencing on] December 17, 2020, and preparing corrected minutes and a corrected abstract of