People v. Schick CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 1/5/23 P. v. Schick CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
THE PEOPLE, C096018
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CF02810)
v.
JOHN MICHAEL SCHICK,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for defendant John Michael Schick asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a
disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.
1
BACKGROUND
The police obtained a warrant to search defendant’s residence for evidence of
narcotics sales. During the search, the police found a bagged substance that defendant
admitted was his methamphetamine. A subsequent toxicology test confirmed the
substance seized from defendant’s residence was methamphetamine.
The People charged defendant with one count of felony possession for sale of a
controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Defendant filed a motion to quash
and traverse the search warrant. The trial court denied the motion after an in camera
hearing.
Defendant waived his right to a jury trial. After a court trial, the trial court found
defendant guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of sale.
Following the trial court’s guilty finding, defendant moved to substitute his
counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which the trial court denied. The
trial court subsequently placed defendant on two years of formal probation and imposed
fines and fees. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by
counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the
opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from
defendant.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error
that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
2
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.
We concur:
/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.
/s/
MAURO, J.
3