People v. Miller CA2/1

Filed 8/21/20 P. v. Miller CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B300947

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA066786) v.

RAYMOND DAVIS MILLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shannon Knight, Judge. Affirmed. David W. Beaudreau, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Jurors convicted defendant Raymond Davis Miller of numerous crimes. In a prior appeal, this court reversed three 1-year enhancements. Upon remand, the trial court vacated the sentence, struck the three enhancements, and resentenced defendant. Defendant appealed from the ensuing judgment. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to the procedures described in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and requested this court independently review the record. We have reviewed the record and find no error. The judgment is affirmed.

BACKGROUND Following a jury trial, jurors found defendant guilty of three counts of assault with a deadly weapon, dissuading a witness from testifying, criminal threats, attempted kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, petty theft, and burglary. The facts underlying those convictions are not relevant to the current appeal. The trial court sentenced Miller to a 20-year prison term, which included three 1-year-enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5 subdivision (b).1 Miller appealed from the judgment, and this court reversed the three section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements, finding insufficient evidence to support them. (People v. Miller (Apr. 25, 2019, B282284) [nonpub. opn.].) This court held that double jeopardy did not preclude a retrial on the enhancements. (Ibid.)