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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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