From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodgers

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Nov 18, 2019
C088452 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019)

Opinion

C088452

11-18-2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALAN RODGERS, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 18FE003605)

Appointed counsel for defendant Alan Rodgers asked this court to review the record and determine whether any arguable issues exist on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

On February 24, 2018, Sacramento police officers responded to a reported attempted kidnapping at a restaurant. When Officer Orlando Morales arrived, he saw a man seated in the passenger seat of a green Honda Civic in the parking lot. He also observed a man and a woman, later identified as defendant and Yelena Zhuk, near the restaurant's entrance, a short distance from the green Honda.

After speaking with defendant, Zhuk, and the passenger in the Honda, officers determined that the reported kidnapping was unfounded. An officer also interviewed the restaurant manager, who said that Zhuk had entered the restaurant and told her that someone was trying to kidnap her. Just prior to the officers' arrival, the restaurant manager saw defendant exit the driver's side of the green Honda Civic.

Officer Morales ran a records check on the Honda and discovered that the car had been reported stolen the previous day. Upon learning this information, Officer Morales attempted to detain defendant; defendant resisted and tried to flee.

On April 4, 2018, defendant pleaded no contest to unlawfully driving a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and with the intent, either permanently or temporarily, to deprive the owner of title and possession of the vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)(1), count one), receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a), count two), and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1), count three). He also admitted allegations attached to counts one and two that he suffered a prior Vehicle Code section 10851 conviction (§ 666.5, subd. (a)), and stipulated that the value of the Honda exceeded $950.

Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

At the time of his plea, defendant was on probation in a previous case; the court found him in violation of probation based on his plea in the present matter, sentenced him to 180 days in jail and reinstated him on the original terms and conditions.

On April 11, 2018, the court placed defendant on five years' formal probation after imposing and suspending execution of a four-year county prison sentence (§ 1170, subd. (h)) for count one, a concurrent four years for count two, which the court stayed under section 654, and a concurrent term of one year for count three. The court imposed a $120 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), a $90 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a $300 probation revocation restitution fine, which was stayed unless probation was revoked (§ 1202.44). The court waived the main jail booking and classification fees (Gov. Code, § 29550.2).

As a condition of probation, defendant was ordered to report to the probation office within 48 hours of his release. He also was ordered to report in person to probation, as directed by his probation officer, and to obey all applicable laws.

On July 2, 2018, defendant was arrested for stealing a car from a car lot in Sacramento. A petition for revocation of probation was filed on July 5, 2018, alleging that defendant violated Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), and failed to report to probation as scheduled on four occasions.

At the violation of probation hearing, an employee of the car lot testified that he arrived at work on June 22, 2018, and discovered a black Chevrolet Suburban missing from the lot. Video surveillance from the previous night showed two people in and around the car; one of the individuals drove away in the Suburban while the other rode off on a bicycle with a black front tire and a white rear tire.

Over a week later, on July 2, police were dispatched to a suspicious vehicle call about a black Suburban. When the officer arrived, he saw a man exiting the black Suburban, and a woman standing near the back of the car. They were later identified as defendant and Elena Zhuk. A records check revealed that the Suburban was the one reported stolen from the car lot. Substances testing positive for methamphetamine and heroin were recovered from the car, and defendant possessed a bicycle that had a white rear tire.

Following the contested probation hearing, the court found defendant in violation of probation. On November 15, 2018, the court revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously imposed and suspended four-year sentence. He was awarded 184 days of credit. Defendant timely appealed the contested violation of probation.

At the same hearing, defendant pleaded no contest to stealing the Suburban from the car lot with two prior vehicle theft convictions in case No. C018FE012822, and was sentenced to a concurrent three-year term; the court imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, stayed unless parole was revoked, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 court facilities assessment. He was also sentenced to time served in two additional cases (case Nos. 16FE073283 & 17FE007593). --------

II

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief requesting that we review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

KRAUSE, J. We concur: MURRAY, Acting P. J. DUARTE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Rodgers

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)
Nov 18, 2019
C088452 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019)
Case details for

People v. Rodgers

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALAN RODGERS, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Nov 18, 2019

Citations

C088452 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019)