Filed 5/1/13 P. v. Millan CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D062562
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCN268130,
SCN233183 & SCN264484)
MIGUEL A. MILLAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, K. Michael
Kirkman, Judge. Affirmed.
In 2009, the court placed Miguel A. Millan on three years' probation for burglary
(Pen. Code, § 459; case No. SCN233183) and receiving stolen property (Id., § 496, subd.
(a); case No. SCN264484). In 2010, the court placed him on three years' probation for
first degree burglary (Id., §§ 459 & 460; case No. SCN268130). In June 2012, the court
summarily revoked probation in all three cases. In July, the court reinstated probation for
three years and suspended execution of a four-year prison sentence: the four-year middle
term in No. SCN268130 and concurrent two-year middle term sentences in each of the
other two cases. Millan appeals.
BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2012, sheriff's deputies stopped a car Millan was driving. Law
enforcement officers conducted a probation search at a residence and, on a dresser in a
bedroom, found a methamphetamine pipe containing .02 grams of methamphetamine.
Also in the bedroom were photographs, documents and a passport, all belonging to
Millan. The officers arrested Millan for possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf.
Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and possessing drug paraphernalia (Id., § 11364).
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and
proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to
review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel
mentions as possible, but not arguable, issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence
to support the summary revocation of probation; (2) whether counsel's stipulation
regarding laboratory test results fell under Proposition 115, if the stipulation was used as
a basis for the probation revocation evidentiary hearing; (3) whether the court committed
prejudicial error in admitting evidence of methamphetamine found in the passenger's
purse; and (4) whether 0.2 grams of methamphetamine is enough to meet the standard for
revocation of probation, when Drug Enforcement Administration guidelines state that a
usable amount is 0.05 grams.
2
We granted Millan permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not
responded. A review of the record pursuant to Wende and Anders, including the possible
issues listed pursuant to Anders, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues.
Millan has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
IRION, J.
3