-
Filed 1/5/23 P. v. Schick CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C096018 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF02810) v. JOHN MICHAEL SCHICK, Defendant and Appellant. Appointed counsel for defendant John Michael Schick asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. 1 BACKGROUND The police obtained a warrant to search defendant’s residence for evidence of narcotics sales. During the search, the police found a bagged substance that defendant admitted was his methamphetamine. A subsequent toxicology test confirmed the substance seized from defendant’s residence was methamphetamine. The People charged defendant with one count of felony possession for sale of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Defendant filed a motion to quash and traverse the search warrant. The trial court denied the motion after an in camera hearing. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial. After a court trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale. Following the trial court’s guilty finding, defendant moved to substitute his counsel under People v. Marsden (1970)
2 Cal.3d 118, which the trial court denied. The trial court subsequently placed defendant on two years of formal probation and imposed fines and fees. Defendant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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 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. 2 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. /s/ BOULWARE EURIE, J. We concur: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ MAURO, J. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: C096018
Filed Date: 1/5/2023
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/5/2023