People v. Miller CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS279592
- Trial judges
- Garry G. Haehnle; Ana Espana
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Patricia D. Benke, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court accepted Miller's guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance while in prison and imposed a stipulated two-year consecutive sentence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and finding no reasonably arguable issues.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea and imposition of stipulated sentence“A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.” | de novo | not reached | agree with court The appellate court did not review the trial court's specific rulings on the plea or sentence for error because appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues, and the court's independent review of the record confirmed the absence of any reasonably arguable claims. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues or, if none exist, to request the court to independently review the record for error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to withdraw from representation when no arguable issues exist, subject to court review.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the established Wende/Anders protocol for handling appeals where counsel identifies no arguable issues. The court explicitly states it conducted the required independent review of the record and found no error, which satisfies the constitutional requirements for effective assistance of appellate counsel in this context.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court accepted Miller's guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6) under a plea agreement with a stipulated two-year consecutive term, imposed that sentence, and denied a certificate of probable cause. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Miller filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Acceptance of guilty plea after advisement and waiver of constitutional rights and finding of a factual basis“The trial court questioned Miller regarding the plea agreement and waiver of his constitutional rights, found a factual basis for his plea, and accepted his guilty plea and admissions.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The opinion recites that the trial court advised Miller of his rights, took his waiver, and found a factual basis based on his admission; nothing in the record as described suggests a defect, and without a certificate of probable cause plea-validity challenges are not cognizable in any event. |
Imposition of the stipulated two-year consecutive sentence with fines and fees“At sentencing, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence of two years in prison, consecutive to his current prison sentence, in accordance with Miller's guilty plea and imposed certain fines and fees.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The sentence matched the stipulated term in the plea agreement and Miller waived appeal of that sentence; the opinion identifies no irregularity in fines or fees, though it does not detail them. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, after which the court conducts its own examination.
- missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal the Court of Appeal's opinion should describe the facts and procedural history, the crimes, the punishment, and the issues counsel raised, and address any contentions the defendant personally raises; the opinion substantially complies though it does not cite Kelly.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, listed counsel's possible issues, gave Miller the chance to file a supplemental brief, and independently reviewed the record before affirming. It did not cite People v. Kelly or discuss the effect of the denied certificate of probable cause on cognizable issues, but the result is clearly correct on this record.
Opinion
Filed 5/9/16 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, D069012
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS279592)
MARK MILLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ana Espana and Garry G. Haehnle, Judges. Affirmed.
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mark Miller appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to one count of possession of a controlled substance while in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6).1 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2015, a complaint charged Miller with one count of possession of a controlled substance while in prison (§ 4573.6) and alleged he had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). In July, pursuant to a plea agreement, Miller pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance while in prison (§ 4573.6). His plea form stated that he was induced to plead guilty by the stipulated prison term of two years consecutive to his current prison sentence and dismissal of the remainder of the complaint. As part of his guilty plea, Miller waived his right to appeal that stipulated sentence. The trial court questioned Miller regarding the plea agreement and waiver of his constitutional rights, found a factual basis for his plea, and accepted his guilty plea and admissions. Miller admitted that on or about March 17, 2014, he illegally and knowingly possessed a controlled substance while in prison. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the stipulated sentence of two years in prison, consecutive to his current prison sentence, in accordance with Miller's guilty plea and imposed certain fines and fees.
Miller timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause.
DISCUSSION
Miller's appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following possible, but 2 not arguable, issues for our review: (1) was Miller properly advised of his constitutional rights prior to his guilty plea; (2) was there a factual basis for his guilty plea; and (3) was the sentence imposed by the trial court in accordance with his guilty plea?
We granted Miller permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Miller has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12