People v. Epperson CA3

Filed 6/16/15 P. v. Epperson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C075568

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 12F05086, 12F08506) MICHAEL PATRICK EPPERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Patrick Epperson asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

1

On July 24, 2012, a probation officer found 0.63 grams of methamphetamine in defendant’s bedroom during a probation search. The People subsequently charged defendant in Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 12F05086 (case No. 086) with possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) The People further alleged defendant was previously convicted of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), a strike offense, and had served four prior prison terms. On August 22, 2012, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for appointment of new counsel pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden). Defendant then moved to represent himself pursuant to Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [45 L.Ed.2d 562] (Faretta). The court ordered defendant’s competency evaluated, issued Faretta warnings, and in October 2012, granted defendant’s Faretta motion. Defendant then entered a plea of not guilty. On March 27, 2013, the trial court granted the People’s motion to consolidate case No. 086 with Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 12F08506. The following month, the trial court revoked defendant’s pro. per. status and reappointed the public defender’s office to represent defendant. On June 20, 2013, the People filed a first amended consolidated complaint, later deemed the information, adding a second charge for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and an allegation that defendant committed the offense while released from custody in case No. 086. That same day, the trial court denied defendant’s second Marsden motion and set the matter for a trial readiness conference and a jury trial. Defendant subsequently withdrew his not guilty plea and, represented by counsel, pled no contest to possessing a controlled substance in case No. 086. Defendant also admitted he was previously convicted of burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),