Opinion
B232163
12-05-2011
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEANNET WEI CHANG, Defendant and Appellant.
Joseph R. Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA075949)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed.
Joseph R. Escobosa, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Jeannet Wei Chang appeals the judgment following her conviction by jury of one count of arson of another's property. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d).) We affirm.
All further section references are to the Penal Code except as otherwise noted.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2009, Marcelo Olivas discovered a fire burning on a vine-covered fence and plastic lattice on a wall that separated her property from Chang's property. By the time police and fire officials arrived at Olivas's home, she had used a garden hose to knock down the flames.
While firefighters finished putting out the remains of the fire, police officer Paul Puente went next door and talked to Chang, who was standing on her side of the wall on the property line. Officer Puente observed a rolled-up newspaper, with a burnt end, a few feet from where Chang was standing. When the officer asked Chang what had happened, Chang answered that she had started the fire with the newspaper because she was "upset" that Olivas's vines were growing on Chang's property. Chang explained that she had not known how to cut the vines back, and that she had thought she could burn the vines on her side, and then just clean up the ashes. Officer Puente placed Chang under arrest, and transported her to the police station. At the station, Chang waived her Miranda rights, and repeated that she had set fire to the vine-covered wall.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.
--------
In June 2009, the People filed an information charging Chang with one count of arson of another's property. In July 2009, the trial court ordered that Chang be examined pursuant to Evidence Code section 730. On September 25, 2009, a forensic psychiatrist filed a report expressing an opinion that Chang was incompetent to stand trial. At a hearing on the same date, the trial court declared a doubt as to Chang's competency to stand trial, and suspended the criminal proceedings. (§ 1368.) Chang thereafter was committed to the Metropolitan State Hospital. On June 18, 2010, hospital officials filed a "Certificate of Mental Competency" with the court. (§ 1372.) On June 23, 2010, the trial court reinstated the criminal case.
The arson charge was tried to a jury in March 2011, at which time the prosecution presented evidence establishing the facts summarized above. Chang testified in her own defense. According to Chang, she had made an "offering" to her ancestors earlier on the day of the fire by burning "garlic paper money" at a local cemetery. After the ceremony, she had taken the "burial" home and placed it by her backyard stairs, and then gone to work. The fire must have been started by a spark. In sum, Chang attributed the fire to an accident; she denied that she ever told a police officer that she (Chang) had started the fire. On March 18, 2011, the jury returned a verdict finding Chang guilty as charged. On April 5, 2011, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence. The court placed Chang on probation for a period of five years on condition she serve 316 days in jail, with credit for time served. The court ordered Chang to pay a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), along with a court security fee and criminal conviction assessment, and to make restitution to Olivas pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f), in an amount to be determined by the probation department.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, we appointed counsel, who filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that we review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues. On September 30, 2011, we notified Chang by letter that she could submit any claims or arguments which she wished our court to consider. Chang did not respond to our letter.
We have independently reviewed the record submitted on appeal, and are satisfied that Appellant's appointed counsel has fulfilled her duty, and that no arguable issues exist. (See People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
FLIER, J.
GRIMES, J.