People v. Rodriguez CA2/4

Filed 5/21/21 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B307257

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA460930) v.

JESSE RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen A. Marcus, Judge. Affirmed. Jesse Rodriguez, in pro. per.; Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Jesse Rodriguez challenges the trial court’s denial of his request to strike an enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1), after remand for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1393).1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting that this court conduct an independent review of the record. Appellant has filed a supplemental brief raising various contentions in support of striking the enhancement. Having considered appellant’s arguments and having reviewed the record independently, we affirm.

BACKGROUND In 2018, a jury convicted appellant of assault with a deadly weapon, and he was sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison, including a five-year enhancement for a prior serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). At the time of sentencing, former section 1385 precluded the trial court from striking this enhancement. (See former § 1385, subd. (b).) In appellant’s initial appeal, we affirmed his conviction but remanded the matter for the trial court to consider exercising its newly granted discretion to strike the enhancement under SB 1393, which eliminated section