Opinion
D073309
09-26-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DION ANTHONY MILLER, Defendant and Appellant.
David K. Rankin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCD270362) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Margie G. Woods and Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed. David K. Rankin for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Dion Anthony Miller pleaded guilty to drug sales after his motions to suppress evidence were denied. Appellate counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Miller's counsel asks this court to review the record independently for error as required by Wende. We granted Miller the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. We have independently reviewed the record under Wende and found no reasonably arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm.
BACKGROUND
The District Attorney of San Diego filed an information charging Miller with four counts of possession and transportation of cocaine base and methamphetamine for sale, all with enhanced sentences due to prior drug convictions. He was charged in count 1 with transportation of cocaine base for sale (Heath & Saf. Code, § 11352, subdivision (a)), with allegations that the controlled substance was not for personal use (Pen. Code, § 1210, subd. (a)); in count 2 with possession of cocaine base for sale (§ 11351.5); in count 3 with transportation of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11379, subd. (a)); and in count 4 with possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378). It was alleged with respect to all counts that Miller had three prior drug convictions that enhanced his sentence (§ 11370.2, subds. (a), (c)), and that he was not eligible for probation due to his prior drug convictions (§ 11370, subd. (a); Pen. Code, §§ 1203, subd. (e)(4), 1203.07, subd. (a)(11)). His prior drug convictions were also alleged to be convictions for which he had served time in prison (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and he had one strike prior conviction for robbery when he was a juvenile (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 668, 1170.12).
Further statutory references are to the Health & Safety Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Miller moved twice to suppress evidence, once at the preliminary hearing and again after the information was filed. Both motions were denied. His request to replace his appointed counsel was also denied.
On November 17, 2017, Miller pleaded guilty to count 1, of transportation of cocaine base, a controlled substance, in violation of section 11352, subdivision (a), and admitted that he did not transport the cocaine base for personal use within the meaning of Penal Code section 1210, subdivision (a). In return, the deputy district attorney dismissed three additional counts of possession and transportation of controlled substances for sale, three allegations of prior drug-related convictions, and the prior strike conviction. The parties stipulated to a sentence of five years, to be split in half between custody and mandatory supervision.
The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Miller in accordance with his plea agreement. Miller filed a timely notice of appeal based on the denial of his motion to suppress evidence.
Miller challenged the cause for the traffic stop initiated by a San Diego police officer, after which controlled substances were found in the car. The officer testified at the preliminary hearing that he stopped the car in which Miller was a passenger because the car was at a complete stop in a traffic lane in violation of Vehicle Code section 22400, subdivision (a). It could obstruct traffic. The officer conducted a records check on Miller and found that he had waived his Fourth Amendment right not to be searched. The officer searched the car with the consent of the driver and found controlled substances. At the end of the preliminary hearing, the court denied Miller's motion to suppress. It found that the officer had a valid, lawful reason to detain or stop the vehicle based on the traffic rule violation. The officer's actions after the stop were lawful.
Miller moved for a review of the motion to suppress in the trial court. The trial court reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript and the officer's body camera footage of the stop. It found the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop the car and detain its occupants based on the traffic code violation of stopping the car in the roadway.
DISCUSSION
Miller's appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, and has not raised any specific issues on appeal. Counsel identified the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress as an arguable appellate issue.
We have independently reviewed the record under Wende, including the evidence and law related to the motion to suppress evidence. We conclude there are no meritorious issues to be argued or that require further briefing on appeal. We discern no error in the denial of the motion to suppress evidence. Competent counsel has represented Miller on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, J. AARON, J.