People v. Miller CA4/1

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
3