People v. Rodriguez CA3

Filed 8/30/16 P. v. Rodriguez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C081109

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F00930)

v.

RUBEN RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) In February 2013, defendant Ruben Rodriguez entered a bank wearing a mask and a long coat. He was carrying an umbrella and a gun, which was later determined to be a BB gun. He approached a bank employee and pointed the BB gun at her, forcing her to

1

the vault area of the bank. While in the vault area, defendant told two other bank employees to put money from the vault inside a bag. As defendant was leaving the bank, the police arrived. A police chase ensued.1 Defendant drove in excess of the speed limit and ran a stop sign. Eventually, his vehicle collided with another vehicle and he was taken into custody. Items related to the robbery were found inside defendant’s truck, including the mask, BB gun, umbrella, and money from the bank. In February 2013, a felony complaint was filed, charging defendant with one count of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)2 It was also alleged that defendant had two prior serious and violent felony convictions (strikes), and therefore was eligible for a three strikes sentence within the meaning of sections 667, subdivision (e)(2) and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2). In April 2013, defense counsel expressed doubt as to defendant’s competency pursuant to section 1368, and criminal proceedings were suspended pending an evaluation of defendant. Following the submission of a competency/psychiatric evaluation report, defendant was found competent to stand trial and criminal proceedings were reinstated. In August 2013, an information was filed, adding two additional counts of robbery. (§ 211.) Defendant entered not guilty pleas to the three robbery counts and denied the prior strike allegations. In April 2015, defendant changed his pleas to not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), and two doctors were appointed to evaluate him. Following the submission of the doctors’ reports, defendant withdrew his NGRI pleas.