Opinion
D076508
02-07-2020
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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, Laura W. Halgren, Judge. Affirmed. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2017, Todd David Martin pleaded guilty to one count of failure to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.108, subd. (b)) Martin was placed on probation with credit for time served.
In 2018, Martin filed a motion to reduce his sentence to a misdemeanor. The motion was denied. Martin appealed the denial of his motion. This court affirmed in an unpublished opinion (People v. Martin (Oct. 19, 2018, D073533) [nonpub. opn.]).
In July 2018, Martin admitted a violation of probation. He was reinstated on probation with additional custody. Martin again appealed, and this court affirmed in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Martin (Sept. 23, 2019, D074642) [nonpub. opn.].)
In July 2019, Martin pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance while he was on probation in this case. Martin's probation in this case was revoked and the court sentenced him to a term to be served concurrently with the drug conviction. The court found he lacked the ability to pay fines, fees and assessments and stayed all of them.
Martin filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal, counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Martin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, counsel has filed a Wende brief. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two issues he considered in his assessment of the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Whether Martin's convictions are eligible for reduction to misdemeanors; and
2. Whether the court at the original sentencing following a guilty plea, vary the terms of the plea bargain by reducing the conviction to a misdemeanor.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Martin on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J. O'ROURKE, J.