1

Filed 1/13/15 P. v. Miller CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAMES LAWRENCE MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

C074725

(Super. Ct. Nos. CM036781, 

CM037186 & CM037187)

This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). 

Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we affirm the judgment. 

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of 

the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

Defendant James Lawrence Miller pleaded no contest to assault with a firearm 

(Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)2; case No. CM036781, count 2), willfully evading a peace 

officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); case No. CM037186, count one), and failure to 

appear while on bail (§ 1320.5; case No. CM037187). He admitted an allegation that he 

was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance at the time of his failure to 

appear. (§ 12022.1.) In exchange, three related counts, several related allegations, and 

two unrelated cases (case Nos. CM037344 & SCR89688) were dismissed with a Harvey

waiver.3 

Defendant was sentenced to prison for seven years four months, awarded 27 days’ 

custody credit and 26 days’ conduct credit, ordered to make restitution to his victims, and 

ordered to pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) in each case, a $240 restitution fine 

suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45) in each case, an $850 fine (§ 672) 

including a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 court facilities 

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) in each case, and a single $736 probation report fee 

(§ 1203.1, subd. (b)). 

Assault with a Firearm

On July 2, 2012, Oroville Police Department officers were dispatched to an 

apartment regarding a gunshot victim. Upon arrival, the officers met with Keith M., who 

was holding his chest, appeared to be in pain, and stated that he had been shot in the 

chest. Keith M. stated he had been shot in front of an inn by a white male adult who 

 

1

 Because these matters were resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the 

probation officer’s report.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code in effect at the time of the 

charged offenses.

3 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
3

“was trying to rob him and take his money.” Keith M. did not know the assailant who, 

prior to the shooting, had disclosed that he was staying in room 108 of a local motel. The 

officer recalled that on the previous day, he and another officer had contacted defendant

and a female at that motel room. Keith M.’s description of his assailant matched that of 

defendant. The motel manager confirmed that defendant had been the tenant of that 

room. The room was searched and was found to be empty. 

Later, an officer met with Keith M. in the trauma unit. Keith M. stated he had 

been staying at the inn. He answered a knock at the door and saw two men: 

Christopher D., whom he had known for more than a year, and defendant. Defendant 

pointed a revolver at Keith M.’s chest and said “Give me your shit!” Keith M. responded 

that defendant might as well shoot him because he “didn’t have any shit.” Defendant 

shot Keith M. once in the chest. 

The officer conducted a photo lineup. Keith M. positively identified 

Christopher D. as the person he saw when he opened the door. Keith M. positively 

identified defendant as the person who shot him. 

Four days later, defendant went to the Oroville Police Department to retrieve his 

identification card. He was taken into custody and denied shooting Keith M. or being 

involved in a shooting. 

Failure to Appear

On August 29, 2012, defendant failed to appear in court after having been released 

from custody. 

Evading a Police Officer

On September 2, 2012, an Oroville Police sergeant observed defendant, whom he 

knew from prior contacts, driving a vehicle. Dispatch confirmed that defendant did not 

have a driver’s license. The officer attempted to catch up to defendant, who appeared to 

be evading him. Defendant drove at high speed through an alley. The officer activated 

his patrol car’s emergency lights. Defendant looked toward the officer and accelerated. 
4

Defendant traveled at 50 to 80 miles per hour within a residential area. He passed 

through several intersections without stopping or slowing down for the posted stop signs.

The officer observed defendant turn and stop in the driveway of a mobile home 

park. The officer positioned his patrol car to block defendant’s exit, but defendant 

backed into the patrol car with enough force to push it backwards. The officer tried to 

disable defendant’s car by striking it with his push bumper. 

Defendant drove onto the sidewalk where he knocked down a tree and a street 

sign. Defendant fled from his car as another officer arrived on the scene. The officer 

grabbed defendant’s hand and tried to place him in a control hold. When defendant failed 

to comply, he was ordered to stop resisting and lie on his stomach. When he refused to 

comply with those directives, officers used a Taser to immobilize defendant and take him 

into custody. 

WENDE REVIEW

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and 

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 

436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 

30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we 

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.
5

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 MURRAY , J.

We concur:

 NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

 MAURO , J.