Opinion
D073533
10-19-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD DAVID MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCD271210) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Todd David Martin pleaded guilty to the felony of failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements based on a prior felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 290.012, 290.018, subd. (b).) The People dismissed the balance of the charges against him. The court sentenced him to time served, and imposed three years of probation under certain circumstances, including that if directed to do so, he would wear a GPS tracking device. Martin subsequently requested the court reduce his felony to a misdemeanor but the court refused to do so, concluding the reduction was not contemplated in the plea bargain.
DISCUSSION
In light of Martin's plea and the specific issues raised on this appeal, we need not address the facts surrounding his failure to register. Martin's appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Instead, Martin's counsel identified five possible issues under Anders: "(1) Is a conviction under [] section 290.018, subdivision (b) eligible for resentencing as a misdemeanor under [] section 17, subdivision (b)? [¶] (2) May a court, at the original sentencing following a guilty plea, vary the terms of the plea bargain by reducing [Martin's] conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor under [] section 17, subdivision (b)? [¶] (3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed GPS tracking 'if directed by probation' as a term or condition of probation. [¶] (4) Whether the trial court's denial of [Martin's] Marsden motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) before the preliminary hearing was error. [¶] (5) Whether the denial of [the] Marsden motion is appealable without a certificate of probable cause."
We granted Martin the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and considered the possible issues identified by Martin's counsel. We have found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal. Competent counsel has represented Martin in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. HUFFMAN, J.