P. v. Miller
Filed 11/30/09 P. v. Miller CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STANHOPE HOWARD MILLER, Defendant and Appellant. | H033572 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F15618) |
Defendant Stanhope Howard Miller admitted to police that he had fondled his developmentally delayed granddaughter on a number of occasions. After the trial court denied a motion to exclude his statements, defendant waived his right to a jury trial and the matter was submitted to the court on documents and argument of counsel.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court found him guilty of two counts of committing a lewd act upon Jane Doe. (Pen. Code, 288, subd. (a).) The court also found true the allegations that he was a habitual sex offender (Pen. Code, 667.71), that he had previously been convicted in 1972 of a violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (c) and that he had one strike prior. (Pen. Code, 667.61, subds. (a) & (d), 667, subds. (b)-(i).) The trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years in prison. This appeal ensued.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. Defendant, through a personal representative, has submitted a supplemental letter brief with attached Exhibits A through F, which we now consider pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.
In his letter brief defendant complains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. Prior to trial, defendant brought a Marsden motion substantially on the same grounds as those raised in his letter brief. That motion was denied because the court found that trial counsel had provided adequate representation. Neither his supplemental argument nor his exhibits are sufficient to show either deficient performance by trial counsel or that he was prejudiced thereby. (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 664.) Nor have we found anything in the record to support such a claim.
Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal.4th 106, we have reviewed the entire record and the arguments raised by defendants supplemental letter brief. We conclude that there are no arguable issues on appeal for which we must seek further briefing. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
_____________________________________
rushing, P.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________
PREMO, J.
_________________________________
ELIA, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
