From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martin

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 18, 2012
D059078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)

Opinion

D059078 Super. Ct. No. SCD219320

01-18-2012

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O'Neill and Frederick Maguire, Judges. Affirmed.

A jury convicted Todd Martin of possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)). The court suspended the imposition of sentence and granted Martin probation, subject to certain conditions. Martin filed a timely notice of appeal.

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 (Anders) raising possible, but not arguable issues. We offered Martin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Martin filed a supplemental brief that is largely a rambling discussion of why he disagrees with the trial court's decision regarding consent to search. The document does not cite any applicable authority nor does it raise any arguable issue for reversal of the trial court.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On March 5, 2009, police officers went to Martin's home for the purpose of investigating his possible participation in a series of rapes and robberies in the Carmel Valley area of San Diego. Martin was a registered sex offender and roughly fit a description given to police.

During the encounter police patted down Martin's outer garments and felt a baggie consistent with marijuana and felt what appeared to be a pill bottle. Police next obtained Martin's permission to search his car.

The search of Martin's car revealed a piece of burned "tinfoil," which appeared to be consistent with using the foil to liquefy methamphetamine. Martin was arrested following the search of his car.

Martin was searched following his arrest. The search revealed .08 grams of methamphetamine, which was described as a usable quantity.

DISCUSSION

As we have previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating the inability to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, the brief identifies possible, but not arguable issues:

1. Did Martin validly consent to the search of his car;

2. Was the search of the car rendered invalid because police did not give Martin a Miranda warning after his arrest;

3. Whether the trial court erred in declining to reduce Martin's conviction to a misdemeanor?

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and have not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Martin on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

____________________

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________

NARES, J.

_________________

HALLER, J.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.


Summaries of

People v. Martin

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 18, 2012
D059078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TODD MARTIN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 18, 2012

Citations

D059078 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2012)