IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen)
December 10, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL KARL MCNEIL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. Nos. CR026928, CR025563)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
P. v. McNeil
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
On March 24, 2008, a complaint filed in Lassen County Superior Court charged defendant Michael Karl McNeil with assault with a deadly weapon on or about December 15, 2007, and violation of a restraining order on or about December 26, 2007. As to the assault charge, the complaint alleged that defendant had incurred a prior strike.
On July 31, 2008, a complaint filed in Lassen County Superior Court charged defendant of unlawful taking and driving of a vehicle, grand theft, and violation of a court order, all taking place on or about June 2, 2008. The complaint alleged that defendant committed the offenses while on release from custody.
On August 8, 2011, the trial court granted the People's motions to dismiss both cases in the interest of justice because defendant had been sentenced to a state prison term of 19 years in Los Angeles County.
On August 29, 2011, defendant in propria persona filed a "Motion to Seal and Destroy all Arrest Records" as to both cases, citing Penal Code section 851.8, subdivision (d).*fn1 The record does not show that the prosecuting attorney concurred in defendant's motion, as required by Penal Code section 851.8, subdivision (d).
On March 20, 2012, the trial court denied the motion. The court's order did not state reasons, but the court triply underscored "subdivision (d)" on the form.
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 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 of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising the following issues: (1) Defendant's motion to disqualify the trial judge for bias should have been granted. (2) Defendant's motion to change venue (filed May 6, 2011) should have been granted. (3) Defendant's request to disqualify the Lassen County District Attorney's Office for bias should have been granted. (4) Defendant's motions to dismiss should have been granted. (5) This court should vacate the order denying defendant's motion to seal and destroy records and grant the requested relief. However, we may not consider any of these issues because defendant does not support them by proper citation to the record, legal argument, or authority. (Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794; Kim v. Sumitomo Bank (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 979.)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
The order appealed from is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. BUTZ , J.