Filed 6/30/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
A173952
v.
ANTHONY ARTHUR RODRIGUEZ, (San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. 18NF016063A)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Anthony Arthur Rodriguez’s court-appointed counsel has
filed a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Rodriguez was informed of his right to
file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. We have reviewed counsel’s
brief and have independently reviewed the record. We find no errors or other
issues requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Prior Proceedings – Underlying Convictions, Appeal and Remand
We draw our description of the background from our opinion in the
earlier appeal in this case, People v. Rodriguez (A169053, Feb. 25, 2025)
[nonpub. opn.] (Rodriguez I):
1
“On June 10, 2022, as part of a negotiated disposition, Rodriguez
pleaded no contest to two counts of second degree robbery ([Pen. Code,1]
§ 212.5, subd. (c); counts 1 and 2) and assault on a police officer (§ 245, subd.
(c); count 8), and admitted that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53) in
connection with count 1. Rodriguez also admitted that each of these counts
was a serious felony. The maximum penalty for the charges was 18 years, 8
months; under the negotiated disposition, the agreed-upon maximum
sentence was 12 years and the remaining charges in the information would
be dismissed.”
“Rodriguez was sentenced to the two-year low term for robbery (count
1), an additional 10 years for the gun enhancement under section 12022.53,
subdivision (b), a concurrent two-year low term for the second robbery count
(count 2), and a concurrent three-year term for the assault on a police officer
charge (count 8).”
In the appeal in Rodriguez I, defendant “contend[ed] the trial court
misunderstood the scope of its discretion under amendments to section
12022.53 that allow the court to impose a lesser firearm enhancement, and
the case should be remanded for resentencing.” The Attorney General agreed
that “remand for resentencing is appropriate because the record suggests
that the trial court did not understand its full sentencing discretion.” And we
agreed, explaining that “The trial court here had discretion under section
12022.53 to strike the enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b)
and to impose a lesser included, uncharged enhancement in the Penal Code
other than section 12022.53. (People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015,
1021,1030); see People v. Fuller (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 394, 397 [‘under
Tirado, the sentencing court may impose an uncharged lesser included
1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
enhancement under section 12022.5 after striking a greater enhancement
under section 12022.53’].)”
We remanded the matter to the trial court for full resentencing.
Current Proceedings – Resentencing Following Remand
A resentencing hearing was held on June 26, 2025. Defense counsel
was present and defendant appeared via Zoom. The court read and
considered updated sentencing memoranda from the prosecutor and
Rodriguez, this court’s opinion in Rodriguez I, and the probation officer’s
sentencing report and recommendation from the original hearing. The court
also read materials documenting Rodriguez’s completion of education and
programming in the California Department of Corrections (CDC) that were
current up through June 24, 2025, all of which it considered in addition to
voluminous other materials that were attached to his sentencing
memorandum.
The court heard arguments of counsel for Rodriguez and the
prosecutor, and gave Rodriguez an opportunity to address the court. The
prosecutor requested the court resentence Rodriguez to the full 12 years in
prison and not strike the section 12022.53 enhancement. Although
acknowledging that Rodriguez’s behavior in CDC seemed to “demonstrate a
sincere desire to rehabilitate,” the prosecutor cited the People’s “grave
concerns” about the risk that Rodriguez posed to the public, as well as to the
safety of his then 7-year-old child.2 Rodriguez’s counsel urged that the
section 12022.53 enhancement be stricken.
2 As recounted in the probation report prepared for the initial
sentencing (and relied on by Rodriguez’s counsel in his Wende brief on
appeal), on December 19, 2018, Rodriguez parked his vehicle in the red
emergency zone outside of a Macy’s store, entered the store and selected $164
worth of clothing. As Rodriguez went to the exit, he was approached by two
3
The trial court conducted a complete resentencing. Over the course of
nine pages of transcript, the court explained in detail its reasons for the
sentence. The court found it was in the interest of justice under section 1385
subdivision (c), given Rodriguez’s history of childhood trauma, to strike the
section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement and impose instead the lesser
included enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a). The court
imposed the low term of two years on count 1, with a four-year middle term
enhancement under section 12022.5, subdivision (a); a consecutive one-year
term (one-third the midterm) on count 2, and a consecutive 16-month
consecutive term (one-third the midterm) on count 8. The aggregate sentence
was eight years and four months. After explaining in detail how the court
reached that determination and why, it summed up that the sentence is an
“appropriate recognition of Mr. Rodrigeuz’s remorse and the impact of the
childhood trauma on his substance use and addiction but also balancing the
level of danger that he posed to the public and the serious and violent felonies
that were incredibly dangerous, not only to him and to his child but to the
public, the officer who was assaulted and the loss prevention officers whom
he threatened with a firearm.”
“loss prevention officers” who tried to stop him. An unrelated victim was in
the vicinity. Rodriguez removed a firearm from his waist band and told the
loss prevention officers and the victim to back off. Rodriguez left the store
and got into the vehicle where his minor son was waiting and drove off. This
was the basis for counts 1 and 2, robbery. On June 20, 2019, Rodriguez stole
merchandise he had taken from JC Penney and was driving off when a San
Bruno police officer stopped him. Rodriguez kept reaching for items in his
car, and did not follow the officer’s commands. The officer placed a handcuff
on Rodriguez’s left wrist, but Rodriguez managed to use his other hand to
start the car and drive off, striking the officer and his patrol car. The officer
did not sustain injuries and the patrol vehicle sustained minor damage.
Rodriguez was arrested the next day. This was the basis for count 8,
aggravated assault on a police officer.
4
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues.
Rodriguez was resentenced in accordance with our remand in
Rodriguez I. The trial court exercised its discretion in resentencing
Rodriguez and the sentence imposed appears to be authorized by law.
Rodriguez was ably assisted by counsel at the resentencing. We conclude
there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Miller, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Stewart, P. J.
_________________________
Richman, J.
A173952, People v. Rodriguez
5
