Filed 6/27/23 P. v. Miller CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D081336 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD292297) DAVID MILLER, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.

Sam McGovern, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

David Miller pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance (Health and Saf. Code, § 11378). The parties agreed Miller would receive a two year local prison sentence, which would be suspended, and Miller would be granted two years informal probation, subject to various conditions. The court sentenced Miller in accordance with the plea agreement.

The court found Miller did not have the ability to pay the imposed fines and fees.

The court imposed search conditions, including search of electronic media. Trial counsel objected to the electronic search condition.

Miller filed a timely notice of appeal and obtained a certificate of probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5).

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Miller the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

We do not find the facts of the underlying offense to be relevant to the resolution of this appeal. We will omit the traditional statement of facts.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court validly imposed an electronic search authorization as a condition of probation.

We have independently reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Miller on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

KELETY, J.