Court Opinion

ID: 9405203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 19:05:41.731325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.250065
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/27/23 P. v. Miller CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081336

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SCD292297)

DAVID MILLER,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.
         Sam McGovern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         David Miller pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled
substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378). The parties agreed Miller would
receive a two year local prison sentence, which would be suspended, and
Miller would be granted two years informal probation, subject to various
conditions. The court sentenced Miller in accordance with the plea
agreement.
      The court found Miller did not have the ability to pay the imposed fines
and fees.
      The court imposed search conditions, including search of electronic
media. Trial counsel objected to the electronic search condition.
      Miller filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of
probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the
record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Miller the opportunity to
file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
      We do not find the facts of the underlying offense to be relevant to the
resolution of this appeal. We will omit the traditional statement of facts.
                                 DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and
in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel
has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential
merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court validly imposed an electronic
search authorization as a condition of probation.
      We have independently reviewed the entire record as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Miller on this appeal.

                                        2
                            DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.

                                          HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

KELETY, J.

                                 3