People v. Million CA3

Filed 1/6/21 P. v. Million CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091531

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 62-155484)

v.

DUSTIN MATTHEW MILLION,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dustin Matthew Million filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After reviewing the entire record, 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, 123-124.)

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2017, defendant possessed a deadly weapon commonly known as a collapsible baton. The district attorney subsequently charged defendant with possession of a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 22210),1 along with two other felonies, fraudulent possession of personal identifying information of 10 or more victims (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(3)) and purchase or receipt of a stolen vehicle (§ 496d, subd. (a)). In November 2017, defendant filed a demand under section 1381 that he be brought to trial within 90 days, declaring that he was currently sentenced and serving more than 90 days in the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility in Nevada County. Between December 2017 and January 2018, the Placer County District Attorney made three formal requests for defendant to be produced from Nevada County to Placer County for hearings. The first and third of the district attorney’s requests were denied because defendant had not yet been sentenced for his crimes in Nevada County. The district attorney’s second request was denied because defendant was “out to court” in another county. On April 6, 2018, after he had “finished his time” in Nevada County, defendant appeared in the Placer County Superior Court and was appointed counsel. The trial court ordered defendant confined and set his bail at $10,000. Six days later, the trial court granted defendant’s release with a GPS monitoring system, and noted that defendant was not waiving his section 1381 demand. Defendant later moved to dismiss the charges filed against him pursuant to section 1381. The district attorney opposed the motion. After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court issued a written decision denying defendant’s motion as premature and procedurally defective. In the “court’s view, by the terms of the statute, the