Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Rodriguez CA2/6

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B347602

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/10/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B347602
(Super. Ct. No. 2023031794)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

CRYSTAL CORTES
RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Crystal Cortes Rodriguez deposited and attempted to cash
forged checks, stole merchandise from a store, took delivered
items from porches, and possessed checks belonging to someone
else. She appeals from the judgment after pleading guilty to
felony charges for theft from an elder or dependent adult by a
caretaker (Pen. Code1, § 368, subd. (e)), unauthorized use of
personal identifying information of another (§ 530.5, subd. (a)),
and forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)), and misdemeanor charges for
identity theft (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1)), receiving stolen property
under $950 (§ 496, subd. (a)), petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a)), and
battery (§ 242). She admitted special allegations pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, subd. (a)(3) (the victim was
particularly vulnerable), rule 4.421, subd. (a)(8) (the manner in
which the crime was carried out indicates planning,
sophistication, or professionalism), and rule 4.421, subd. (b)(2)
(her prior convictions are numerous or of increasing seriousness).
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placing
appellant on probation subject to various terms and conditions
including paying victim restitution. After later finding appellant
in violation of probation, the court imposed the previously stayed
sentence, ordering her to serve 365 days in county jail with credit
of 57 days for time served.
We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal.
After counsel examined the record, he filed an opening brief
raising no arguable issues. On December 18, 2025, we advised
appellant by mail that she had 30 days within which to file a
supplemental brief to raise any issues she wished us to consider.
We have not received a response.
We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied no
arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,
441-443.)
The judgment is affirmed.

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the

Penal Code.

2
DISPOSITION
Judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

YEGAN, Acting. P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

3
Ferdinand Inumerable, Judge
Marine Dermadzhyan, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

4