Opinion
H051605
08-29-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ISAIAH RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC754565)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Grover, J.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
Defendant Isaiah Rodriguez was convicted by plea in 2007 of one count of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)) and two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child under 14 years of age (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). According to the probation report, the charges were related to abuse committed by defendant over the course of one year on the then-six-year-old daughter of defendant's fiance. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)), consecutive to six years for one of the lewd conduct counts (middle term; Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)). The other lewd conduct count was sentenced concurrently. This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Rodriguez (April 9, 2008, H032212) [nonpub. opn.].)
Representing himself, defendant petitioned for resentencing in 2023 based on various criminal justice reform measures. The trial court denied the petition by written order without holding a hearing, concluding that none of the cited statutes applied to defendant's case.
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues (citing People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496). Defendant filed supplemental briefing on his own behalf, however the authorities defendant relies on do not apply to his case. Defendant cites Assembly Bill No. 1540, which added section 1170.03 to the Penal Code (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, § 3), later renumbered to Penal Code section 1172.1. (Stats. 2023, ch. 795, § 1). Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1) allows a trial court to recall a sentence on its own motion within 120 days of committing a defendant to custody. As defendant was sentenced and committed to prison in 2007, the sua sponte recall procedure is inapplicable. Defendant cites Penal Code section 1172.75, which provides for resentencing in situations where a sentence enhancement was imposed under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for one or more prior prison terms. (Pen. Code, § 1172.75, subd. (a).) That section is also inapplicable because defendant's sentence does not include a Penal Code section 667.5 enhancement. And defendant argues, without citation to authority, that "crimes of the exact same offense, for which the Petitioner was convicted, have received far more leniency." Defendant does not explain how that unsupported assertion entitles him to recall of a long-final sentence that was the product of a negotiated plea. We conclude nothing in defendant's supplemental brief raises an arguable issue on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying resentencing is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P. J., LIE, J.