P. v. Rodriguez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 12/14/07 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, B179600 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA025392) v. JUAN RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT:* It is ordered that the petition for rehearing, filed by respondent on December 6, 2007, is denied; and that the opinion filed herein on November 21, 2007, be modified in the following particulars: 1. At page 3, the first sentence of the second full paragraph, beginning with As to count 7, the court imposed . . . , the phrase (one-third the middle term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C)) is deleted and replaced with the following: (one-third the 10-year term under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(C)). 2. At page 5, the first sentence of the second full paragraph, beginning with Another court held that. . . , is deleted. 3. At page 5, the last sentence of the second full paragraph, We agree, is deleted. 4. At page 8, at the conclusion of the first sentence of the first full paragraph, beginning with In a case analogous to and ending with the same incident. a footnote is inserted after incident. as follows: 4. In People v. Oates, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1048, the California Supreme Court criticized Moringlane for its failure to consider the issue of multiple victims, observing that the appellate court relied upon now disapproved authority prohibiting multiple enhancement in cases involving one act and multiple victims. (Oates, at pp. 1067-1068.) The court did not include Reeves in its criticism, noting that although Reeves relied upon Moringlane, it did not involve multiple victims. (People v. Oates, supra, at p. 1068, fn. 9.) Although there were multiple victims in the instant case, we apply the reasoning of Reeves to each victim. See footnote 3, ante. The remaining footnotes in the opinion are renumbered accordingly. 5. At page 11, footnote 7 of the original opinion, the final sentence, beginning with Thus, the sentencing court . . . , is deleted, and replaced with the following: Thus, the sentencing court may not choose to impose and stay the lesser enhancement of section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1)(A), once the elements of subdivision (b)(1)(C) are found to be true. There is no change in the judgment. __________________________________________________________________ *EPSTEIN, P. J. MANELLA, J.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
