Filed 6/22/26 P. v. Similla 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D085486
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD303258)
MICHAEL SIMILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Rachel Cano, Judge. Affirmed.
Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Similla appeals from his assault conviction. His appointed
appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues pursuant
to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738. Similla did not file supplemental briefing on his own behalf.
Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We
therefore affirm the conviction.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2024, police officers arrested Similla for assaulting a
security guard with a knife. On May 6, 2024, Similla pleaded guilty to
assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(4)). The trial court suspended imposition of Similla’s sentence and
granted him two years’ formal probation. The terms of Similla’s probation
required, among other things, that he report to the probation department
within 72 hours of his release from custody and that he obey all laws and not
possess any weapons.
On August 16, 2024, in response to a probation department report that
Similla failed to report after being released from custody, the trial court
summarily revoked probation and issued a bench warrant for Similla’s arrest.
On October 10, 2024, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office
filed a complaint against Similla in a separate case (case No. CD305153)
alleging one count of making a criminal threat. That complaint notified
Similla of its dual purposes, which were to obtain (1) a holding order for the
new case and (2) revocation of Similla’s probation utilizing the evidence
presented at the preliminary hearing in case number CD305153. That same
day, the trial court issued order to show cause on the probation violation to be
heard with case number CD305153.
On October 23, 2024, the trial court conducted the preliminary hearing
in case number CD305153 in conjunction with the probation revocation
hearing.1 After hearing testimony that Similla pointed two knives at a
victim and threatened to kill her, the trial court held Similla to answer for
trial in case number CD305153. Based on that same evidence, the trial court
formally revoked Similla’s probation.
On November 20, 2024, the trial court sentenced Similla to three years
in prison for his assault conviction in this case. Similla timely appealed.
Similla requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court denied.
Pursuant to that ruling, this court held that the issues in this appeal are
limited to matters occurring after Simila’s guilty plea that do not involve
prior strike convictions and the stipulated sentence, other than as set forth in
Penal Code section 1016.8.
Similla’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief raising no
issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders.
Counsel identified one potential issue to assist us in our independent review:
whether the trial court erred in overruling Similla’s inadequate notice
objection prior to the parole revocation hearing. Similla has not filed
supplemental briefing despite his counsel and this court informing him of his
right to do so.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders,
and we considered the issue identified by Similla’s counsel. We find no
arguable issue that would result in a reversal or modification of the
judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment. Competent counsel represented
Similla in this appeal.
1 Similla’s request that we augment the record to include the complaint
and any amendments from case number CD305153 and the reporter’s
transcript from the October 23, 2024 hearing is granted.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
RUBIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, J.