Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 P. v. Milo CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A176001 v. (San Mateo County ROBERT NICHOLAS MILO, Super. Ct. No. 23SF015580A) Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Robert Nicholas Milo entered a plea of no contest to a felony charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) (Veh. Code,1 § 23152, subd. (a)) and admitted certain enhancement allegations, including that he had sustained a prior felony DUI conviction within the past 10 years (§ 23550.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to the low term of 16 months in prison. Milo appealed, and his appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), asking this court to review the record for possible arguable issues. Counsel notified Milo of his right to file a supplemental brief of his own, but Milo did not file one. We have reviewed the record, find no arguable issues, and therefore affirm. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Vehicle Code. 1 I. BACKGROUND A. The Charges Following a preliminary hearing, Milo was charged in an April 2025 information with three felonies: (1) driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (a); count 1); (2) driving with 0.08 percent or higher blood alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (b); count 2); and (3) fleeing a pursuing peace officer’s vehicle while driving recklessly (§ 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3). As to counts one and two, the information alleged that Milo drove under the influence within 10 years of a prior felony DUI conviction (§ 23550.5, subd. (a)), and that he drove at an excessive speed and in a reckless manner as prohibited by section 23103 (§ 23582, subd. (a)). The information also alleged that Milo had several prior felony convictions, and that certain aggravating factors applied under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(2). B. Factual Background2 The charges against Milo arose from an incident on April 25, 2023, when California Highway Patrol officers in Redwood City received a call for service from Milo, who reported he had lost control of his vehicle and was traveling at a high rate of speed. Officers located Milo on the highway and determined he was driving 93 miles per hour. The officers tried to conduct a traffic stop, but Milo did not stop. He drove at speeds up to 115 miles per hour. He later exited the highway and ran through a red light before crashing into a metal streetlight pole. Milo smelled like alcohol, and he told the officers he had consumed two beers and one shot before driving. The officers arrested him and transported 2 This summary of the factual background is taken from the probation report, which sets forth details from the police report, the stipulated factual basis for Milo’s plea. Additional details were provided through the arresting officer’s testimony at the preliminary hearing. 2 him to the hospital for his injuries. Milo was aggressive toward hospital staff, so he was sedated. A blood draw taken at the hospital showed Milo’s blood alcohol content was over 0.08 percent. Defense counsel initially filed a motion to suppress the evidence of Milo’s blood alcohol content, which the People opposed. Defense counsel withdrew the motion at the preliminary hearing, stating, “Based upon clarification of the law at this point, I believe I don’t have a basis.” (See, e.g., People v. Nault (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1148 [cited by the People in the trial court; when a driver is unconscious, the general rule is a warrant is not needed].) C. The Plea and Sentence On October 10, 2025, Milo entered a plea of no contest to the count one charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (§ 23152, subd. (a)). As to the enhancement allegations associated with count one, Milo admitted that he was previously convicted of felony DUI in 2021 (§ 23550.5, subd. (a)) and that he drove recklessly in a manner prohibited by section 23103 (§ 23582, subd. (a)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed or stricken. The court referred Milo to the Pathways program. At the sentencing hearing on March 16, 2026, defense counsel informed the court that Milo was rejected from the Pathways program because his “primary diagnosis [was] not . . . the correct diagnosis for pathways.” The court then imposed sentence. The court denied probation and sentenced Milo to the low term of 16 months in prison. The court found Milo had accrued no custody credits. The court imposed certain fines and fees. Milo filed a timely notice of appeal, based on the sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of the plea (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(2)). 3 II. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we find no arguable issues that require further briefing. Milo was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings. The record provides no basis to conclude that counsel acted unreasonably in withdrawing the motion to suppress the results of the blood draw taken when Milo had been sedated after his belligerent behavior toward hospital staff. Before accepting Milo’s no contest plea, the trial court advised him of his constitutional rights and the consequences of the plea. The sentence imposed by the court was the low term in the applicable sentencing triad. (§ 23550.5, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 18, subd. (a).) No sentencing error or other error appears from the record. We will affirm the judgment. III. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. STREETER, J. WE CONCUR: BROWN, P. J. GOLDMAN, J. 4