Filed 8/12/25 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B334994 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA160713) v. FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: On April 12, 2023, appellant and defendant Fernando Rodriguez was arrested on suspicion of commercial burglary. An employee at an automotive store had called the police after hearing strange banging noises on the roof. The responding officer saw a man running from the store, and radioed for backup to apprehend him. Defendant, who matched the man’s description, was found hiding in an adjacent parking lot.

Defendant wore a backpack containing, among other things, a galvanized pole, a hatchet, several knives, razor blades, a pry bar, a pipe wrench, and knee pads.

When investigating the scene, officers found a rope tied to the automotive shop’s roof, leading to a broken air conditioning vent and a large hole. They also found a set of fresh footprints on the roof matching defendant’s shoes.

After his arrest, defendant was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, and questioned by police. Defendant admitted that he had been on the roof of the automotive store, but claimed he was only there to meet the actual attempted burglar, a man named Aaron Garcia, who owned the backpack full of tools.

On August 14, 2023, the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office filed an information charging defendant with one count of commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.)

At trial, defendant testified that he was in the area on the night of his arrest to collect recyclables; he never went on the roof; the police planted the backpack in his car; and he initially hid from the police because he did not want them to discover drug paraphernalia on his person. He admitted that he invented the Aaron Garcia story because he thought it would convince the police to release him.

On cross-examination, defendant admitted to two prior convictions for commercial burglary. As to the most recent prior conviction, defendant confirmed that he entered a liquor store through the roof.

On December 7, 2023, a jury convicted defendant as charged. A bifurcated jury found two aggravating factors to be true. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3) & (b)(5).)

On January 4, 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years. Defendant timely appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal.

Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist.

On April 22, 2025, we informed defendant by letter that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments for us to consider. To date, we have received no response from defendant.

We have independently examined the entire record on appeal and are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

Defendant has, by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our independent review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109– 110.)

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

—————————————————————————————— LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. RICHARDSON, J.