People v. Rodriguez CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 3/9/21 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/2
See Dissenting Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E075540
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB19002210)
THOMAS VINCENT RODRIGUEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearances for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Thomas Vincent Rodriguez was charged by felony
complaint with forgery of a bill, note, or check (Pen. Code,1 § 476, count 1) and grand
theft from an elder or dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (d), count 2). Pursuant to a plea
agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 2. A trial court suspended imposition of
sentence and placed him on probation for three years under specified conditions,
including that he keep the probation officer informed of his place of residence and that he
not contact the victim, enter the premises, or be within 100 yards of the victim’s
residence or workplace. The court subsequently found that defendant violated his
probation. It terminated his probation and sentenced him to three years in county jail,
with credit for time served.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal in propria persona. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2020, defendant’s probation officer filed a petition for revocation
of probation. The petition alleged defendant violated four of his probation conditions,
including contacting the victim, entering the premises or being within 100 yards of the
victim’s residence or workplace, and keeping the probation officer informed of his place
of residence and giving written notice no later than 24 hours after any move. The petition
stated that the victim in the current case was defendant’s mother and there was an active
1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise
indicated.
2
restraining order prohibiting defendant from being within 100 yards of her, her residence,
or her workplace.
The court held a Vickers2 hearing on July 17, 2020. The victim testified that she
saw defendant in her backyard a few times after he was released from jail. She told him,
“You can’t be around here,” but he did not respond. A police officer testified that she
responded to a call at the victim’s residence on February 11, 2020, observed defendant on
the victim’s property, and arrested him for violating a court order and his probation. In
addition, defendant’s probation officer testified that defendant was sent to Set Free Men’s
Ranch (Set Free Ranch) as part of the current case.3 In January 2020, the probation
officer received a call that defendant was no longer at Set Free Ranch since he had
completed the program and was sent to a transitional living facility on January 12. The
probation officer testified that defendant never notified him that he moved. The officer
interviewed defendant in February, and defendant just talked about the facts of the
underlying case. When the officer told him the reason for the interview was because he
violated the restraining order, defendant became irritated and claimed the restraining
order was not valid. The court found that defendant had repeatedly violated the
restraining order and did not recognize it as legally valid, and that he was not cooperating
with the probation department. It terminated probation and sentenced defendant to three
years in county prison, with credit for time served.
2 People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451.
3The plea agreement specifies that defendant agreed to go to Set Free Ranch for
six months.
3
DISCUSSION
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and no potential arguable issues. Counsel has also requested this court to
undertake a review of the entire record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J.
I concur:
MILLER
Acting P. J.
4
[P. v. Rodriguez, E075540]
MENETREZ, J., Dissenting.
Because this is an appeal from a postjudgment order, People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 do not require us to read the
entire record ourselves to look for arguable grounds for reversal. (People v. Thurman
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36, 45; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 498.)
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues, and defendant was given the
opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief but declined. The appeal should
accordingly be dismissed as abandoned. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023,
1039-1040; People v. Scott (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1127, 1129-1130.)
MENETREZ
J.
1