Opinion
E066451
02-28-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DENNIS LEE CHANCE, Defendant and Appellant.
Lynelle K. Hee, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. FMB1500377) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bert L. Swift, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Lynelle K. Hee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant and appellant Dennis Lee Chance pled guilty to one count of arson of a structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c); count 1) and one count of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 2). Defendant also admitted that he had sustained a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). In return, the remaining allegations were dismissed and defendant was sentenced to a total term of 10 years in state prison with 613 days' credit for time served. Defendant appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background is taken from the preliminary hearing transcript found in the supplemental clerk's transcript dated December 1, 2016. --------
On August 28, 2015 at 1:28 a.m., deputies responded to a dispatch call of a fire at the Super Wal-Mart in Yucca Valley. When Deputy Murray arrived, the walls of the Wal-Mart were on fire, and the propane tanks next to the wall were exploding inside the cage. Deputy Murray advised dispatch to expedite the fire department and began evacuating people from the area.
Once the fire department arrived, Deputy Murray reviewed the store's video surveillance footage. Deputy Murray saw a man walk along the west side of the building and douse the propane tanks with liquid. The man also created a trail of liquid that led to the east side of the building. The man then lit the fluid on fire, and it exploded. The suspect was a white male adult, about 50 to 60 years old, wearing eyeglasses and a tank top with bluish shorts. Deputy Murray thereafter radioed deputies with a description of the man, later identified as defendant.
Deputy Kaukani spoke to two employees standing outside a nearby Taco Bell and asked if they had seen anyone matching the suspect's description. The employees reported that they had seen someone matching the suspect's description inside the Taco Bell earlier that evening. Deputy Kaukani then reviewed Taco Bell's video surveillance footage and saw a man matching the suspect's description on the video footage inside the Taco Bell. Deputy Kaukani recognized the suspect, identified as defendant, from a previous contact about one week prior.
Deputy Kaukani thereafter spoke to an overnight cashier at the nearby Arco AM/PM business, who said someone matching defendant's description came into the store around midnight. The cashier also stated that defendant was a regular customer who normally bought soda and doughnuts, but on that night defendant purchased about $2.43 worth of gasoline and pumped it into a white, bleach-type bottle. Deputy Kaukani reviewed the store's video surveillance footage and saw defendant enter the store at about 11:45 p.m., and return outside to pump gasoline into a white bleach-type bottle. Defendant then left, walking toward an open lot just east of the Arco business.
Deputy Kaukani checked the area for defendant, and located him behind the old Wal-Mart. Defendant was wearing the same clothes as in the video at the Arco AM/PM. Deputy Murray arrived at the location and identified appellant as the man he saw on the surveillance video from Wal-Mart.
On September 1, 2015, a felony complaint was filed charging defendant with one count of arson of a structure (§ 451, subd. (c)) with a prior arson conviction (§ 451.1, subd. (a)). The complaint also alleged that defendant had suffered one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
On September 8, 2015, after defense counsel declared doubt as to defendant's mental competency, the trial court appointed a doctor to evaluate defendant pursuant to sections 1368 and 1369 and suspended the proceedings.
On November 30, 2015, the parties stipulated to the medical examiner's report, and the trial court found defendant competent to stand trial.
Following the preliminary hearing, the trial court found sufficient evidence to bind defendant over.
On December 14, 2015, an information was filed with the same charges and allegations as in the felony complaint.
On June 29, 2016, the People orally amended the information to add count 2, assault by any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)). Defendant confirmed that he had discussed the added count 2 with his attorney. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant thereafter pled guilty to counts 1 and count 2, and admitted the prior strike conviction in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining allegations and a stipulated term of 10 years in state prison. After directly examining defendant, the trial court found that defendant read and understood his plea form and that defendant understood the charges and consequences of his guilty plea and admission. The trial court also found that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights, that defendant's plea and admission were entered into freely and voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis for defendant's plea and admission. The parties stipulated that the police reports and any attached documents and the preliminary hearing transcript provided a factual basis for the plea. Immediately thereafter, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement (the middle term of four years on count 1, plus the middle term of three years on count 2, doubled to six years due to the strike prior, for a total term of 10 years). Defendant was awarded 613 days of credit for time served (307 days actual, plus 306 conduct). The remaining allegations were dismissed.
On July 13, 2016, defendant filed a notice of appeal, challenging the validity of the plea and admission based on his mental condition. Defendant also requested a certificate of probable cause, which was denied.
On July 26, 2016, defendant's appellate counsel filed an amended notice of appeal, challenging whether defendant was properly advised of and waived his constitutional rights and whether there was a factual basis for the plea.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, 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 case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.