Opinion
E072753
05-11-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAFAEL BRAVO FLORES, Defendant and Appellant.
Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. FWV18002363) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Elia V. Pirozzi, Judge. Affirmed. Randall Conner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found defendant and appellant, Rafael Bravo Flores, guilty of arson of a structure or forest. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c), count 1.) The court thereafter found true allegations that defendant had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 13 years of imprisonment.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. --------
After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the facts, a statement of the case, and one potentially arguable issue: whether the court infringed upon defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by sentencing him to serve 13 years in prison after the prosecution had offered to resolve the case prior to trial in exchange for a four-year prison sentence. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 28, 2018, around 1:00 p.m., the witness was driving when he saw smoke. He pulled over and exited his vehicle. The smoke was coming from an adjacent ravine within which there was a lot of dry brush. There were a large number of homes nearby. Out of concern for the homes, the witness ran into the ravine to see if he could put out the fire.
As the witness approached the fire, he saw defendant hunched over with a large lighter as if trying to start additional fires. He saw another bush catch fire when he came within 15 feet of defendant. The witness asked defendant if he had lit the fire; defendant started to leave; the witness followed him.
At some point thereafter, defendant stopped and changed into clothes contained in his backpack. The witness started taking photos of defendant. Defendant started shielding his face with his backpack.
A police officer was dispatched to the fire around 2:00 p.m. He spoke to the witness, who showed him the pictures he had taken of defendant. The witness told the officer he had seen defendant use a lighter to set a bush on fire. The officer drove in the direction the witness told him defendant had left. The officer located defendant at a nearby gas station. Defendant saw the officer and ran. The officer found and detained him.
The officer informed the witness he had detained a suspect. The officer asked the witness to identify the suspect. After an officer gave the witness admonitions, he identified the suspect, defendant, as the person he had seen lighting the fire. The People introduced into evidence a number of pictures taken by the witness.
An investigator for the fire department opined that the cause of the fire was arson by open flame to vegetation. He testified the fire burned 75 percent of a 1.7-acre field.
At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel argued: "In terms of the number of years and sentencing, Judge, we believe that the initial offer by the D.A.'s office, as well as subsequent offers made are quite telling on what even they believe that the case was worth at the time. And what the proper punishment should have been. The prepreliminary hearing offer in this case was the low term of 16 months, doubled up to 32 months on an alternative charge, which was even a lower charge than what we have here. The pretrial offer in Superior Court was on this particular charge as the low term once again of two years doubled up for four years. There was no extra or new aggravating evidence revealed at trial that the D.A. did not know about before the trial during the negotiation process. . . . [¶] . . . [Thirteen] years, Judge, would be significantly more than what we think would be just in this case. Even . . . nine years, Judge, is three times more than the pre-preliminary hearing offer and two times more than the Superior Court offer of four years. [¶] So, Judge, we think nine years is definitely more than enough for [defendant] on this case."
The People responded: "Your Honor, with regard to defense counsel's comments regarding offers that were made. Whenever a case goes through the legal system there are usually offers, but those offers are also extended with the hope of stimulating early disposition for taking early responsibility. We by no means have punished the defendant for coming to trial. He was given his right to come to trial. . . . [¶] With regard to punishment that's being given today, the fact is there are not factors in mitigation. The defendant was on parole. He has prior felony convictions and has a prior strike that necessitates that nickel prior." The court imposed an aggregate term of 13 years of imprisonment consisting of the following: the midterm of four years on count 1, doubled pursuant to the prior strike conviction, for eight years, and a consecutive five years on the prior serious felony conviction.
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.