Filed 8/23/17 P. v. Roman CA4/3






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ESTEBAN DELACRUZ ROMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.


G054824

(Super. Ct. No. 15CF2520)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, H. Warren Siegel, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Shawn E. Fields, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *
A jury convicted defendant Esteban Delacruz Roman of possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on formal probation.
We appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court he found no arguable issues to assert on defendant’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested we consider whether the court erred by admitting a photograph of methamphetamine and guns found on defendant’s cell phone at the time of his arrest.
Counsel and this court both notified defendant that he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, we received no supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed.
FACTS
During a consensual search of defendant’s cell phone at the time of his arrest, the arresting officer found a photograph which depicted a white crystalline substance in a Ziploc bag lying beside two guns. He told the arresting officer those items belonged to Mario, and that he had taken the photograph “about a month ago.” He also told the arresting officer Mario had given him the methamphetamine to sell, and had provided instructions on how to sell it.
Before trial, defense counsel moved to exclude the photograph, arguing it was irrelevant, more prejudicial than probative, and improper character evidence. The prosecutor argued it was relevant to show defendant’s intent to sell, the officer would opine the substance was methamphetamine, and the methamphetamine and guns depicted were connected to Mario and the drugs defendant possessed to sell for him.
The court denied the motion without prejudice and explained: “I don’t see that it’s character evidence. . . . [¶] As to relevance, conceivably it could be relevant because we do know that sales often involve weapons. Certainly part of the circumstances surrounding his arrest. So the pictures themselves are not hearsay. . . . [¶] So but I can’t rule in a vacuum, so I’m going to deny without prejudice. Let’s see what the officer has to say, okay.”
At trial, the arresting officer testified about the photograph as described above and, without objection, he opined the substance depicted was methamphetamine. At that point, the prosecutor moved the photograph into evidence. The court asked, “Any objection?” Defense counsel replied, “Just the one previously stated.” And the court ruled, “It will be admitted.”
DISCUSSION
We have independently reviewed the entire record as required under Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal.
Counsel suggested we consider whether the court erred by admitting the photograph because: it was irrelevant (Evid. Code, § 210); it was more prejudicial than probative (Evid. Code, § 352); it was inadmissible hearsay (Evid. Code, § 1250); and it was improper character evidence (Evid. Code, § 1101). Counsel also suggested we consider whether admitting the photograph violated defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial.
We have considered these issues and concluded the court did not err by admitting the photograph. To the extent the court exercised its discretion to do so, no abuse of discretion appears. (See People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 587-588, overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 [exercise of discretion in admitting or excluding evidence reviewable for abuse].) But even if the court had erred, reversal would not be required because we perceive no miscarriage of justice. (Evid. Code, § 353; People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 878.)
Finally, even if the court had erred, there is no reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the error (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 837). Alternatively, the error would have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (Chapman v. California (1966) 386 U.S. 18, 24).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:



ARONSON, ACTING P. J.



FYBEL, J.