People v. Rodriguez CA4/1

Filed 4/21/23 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D080612

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF132924)

SERGIO RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Sergio Rodriguez, in pro. per.; and Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Sergio Rodriguez and a codefendant of

attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Rodriguez and codefendant Salvador Munguia were principals in the offense and that at least one of the principals intentionally discharged a firearm

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Rodriguez was sentenced to a seven-year term consecutive to a 25 year-to-life term for the firearm enhancement. Rodriguez appealed and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Munguia et al. (Dec. 21, 2010, D056080).) In 2022, Rodriguez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6). The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court denied the petition, finding the record demonstrated the jury found Rodriguez was the actual shooter and that he was not convicted on a natural and probable consequences theory of liability. Rodriguez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record consistent with Wende. We offered Rodriguez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has responded by filing a supplemental brief.