People v. Rodriguez CA2/6

Filed 3/10/26 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B347602 (Super. Ct. No. 2023031794) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

CRYSTAL CORTES RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Crystal Cortes Rodriguez deposited and attempted to cash forged checks, stole merchandise from a store, took delivered items from porches, and possessed checks belonging to someone else. She appeals from the judgment after pleading guilty to felony charges for theft from an elder or dependent adult by a

caretaker (Pen. Code1, § 368, subd. (e)), unauthorized use of personal identifying information of another (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), and forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), and misdemeanor charges for identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)), receiving stolen property under $950 (§ 496, subd. (a)), petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)), and battery (§ 242). She admitted special allegations pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subd. (a)(3) (the victim was particularly vulnerable), rule 4.421, subd. (a)(8) (the manner in which the crime was carried out indicates planning, sophistication, or professionalism), and rule 4.421, subd. (b)(2) (her prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placing appellant on probation subject to various terms and conditions including paying victim restitution. After later finding appellant in violation of probation, the court imposed the previously stayed sentence, ordering her to serve 365 days in county jail with credit of 57 days for time served. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues. On December 18, 2025, we advised appellant by mail that she had 30 days within which to file a supplemental brief to raise any issues she wished us to consider. We have not received a response. We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-443.) The judgment is affirmed.