People v. Rodriguez CA2/2

── People v. Rodriguez CA2/2 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/3/26 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B344816 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. XCNBA346903 v. ABEL ALVARO RODRIGUEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed. John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________  INTRODUCTION Defendant Abel Alvaro Rodriguez appeals the summary denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 We agree with the trial court the record of conviction showed Rodriguez is ineligible for section 1172.6 resentencing as a matter of law. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND We recite only those facts necessary to support our conclusion. The detailed facts are contained in our 2012 opinion affirming in part and reversing in part Rodriguez’s convictions, People v. Vasquez (Mar. 12, 2012, B225354) (nonpub. opn.) (Vazquez). In January 2009, the People charged Rodriguez and two other men, Jamie Basurto Vasquez and Damian Rocha, with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) relating to the April 2008 homicide of Carl Cerda. The People also charged Rodriguez with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)) on two occasions months after the homicide took place. As to the murder charges against each defendant, the People alleged a principal’s personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d), (e)) and gang enhancements (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), (b)(4)). The case went to trial, and all three defendants were tried together. The jury instructions included CALCRIM Nos. 4002 and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 CALCRIM No. 400 was given as follows: “A person may be guilty of a crime in two ways. One, he or she may have directly committed the crime. I will call that person the perpetrator. Two, he or she may have aided and abetted a perpetrator, who directly committed the crime. A person is equally guilty of the crime whether he or she committed it personally or aided and abetted the perpetrator who committed it.” 2 4013 on accomplice liability but did not include CALCRIM No. 402 or 403 on the natural and probable consequences theory. During deliberations, the jury submitted the following question to the trial court: “We need clarification on points 2 & 3 of line 401 in the Juror Instructions—mainly regarding ‘intention’ and what ‘the crime’ is (or if it could be any crime).” The court responded orally as follows: “[T]o prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that—regarding points two and three, the defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime, which I believe everybody agreed was murder; and as for number three, before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in com