People v. Miller CA1/3

Filed 8/5/21 P. v. Miller CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A159570 v. TONIKA LYNETTE MILLER, (San Mateo County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 18SF014403B)

INTRODUCTION Defendant Tonika Lynette Miller was charged with 14 felonies and two special allegations, stemming from her participation in a real estate scheme that preyed on an elderly victim. Defendant pleaded no contest to procuring and offering a forged instrument (Pen. Code, § 115, subd. (a); count 1),1 grand theft of real property (§ 487, subd. (a); count 3), and grand theft of personal property (§ 487, subd. (a); count 13). Defendant admitted the special allegations that the offenses involved excessive loss and constituted aggravated white collar crime. Pursuant to the plea agreement, defendant expressly stipulated to waive application of section 654 with respect to counts 1, 3, and 13. In exchange for the plea, the remaining charges were dismissed and the agreed-upon “ ‘top’ ” state prison term was three years four months.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

The trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and imposed the maximum three years four months term allowed under the plea. Defendant filed a notice of appeal challenging her sentence. She did not request a certificate of probable cause. Defendant’s court-appointed appellate counsel raises no issues and asks this court for an independent review of the record as required by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). In accordance with Wende, defendant was informed of her right to file a supplemental brief, which she has not done. Our independent review having revealed no arguable issues that require further briefing, the judgment is affirmed. BACKGROUND2 In July 2018, defendant contacted the victim, Sara J.,3 who was over the age of 65, a few weeks before Sara J.’s home was to be sold at a tax auction. On or about July 23, 2018, defendant took the elderly victim to a local restaurant and bought her two margaritas. Defendant then offered Sara J. $500,000 for a reverse mortgage. Defendant told Sara J. that the reverse mortgage would allow her to live at the property until she died. Sara J. agreed and signed a grant deed in favor of Rex Regum, LLC, an entity owned by codefendant Justin Hall.4 Defendant gave Sara J. $1,000 in cash at that time and another $1,000 at some point later. Hall recorded the deed on July 23, 2018. The deed falsely claimed that Sara J. received $800,000 for