Opinion
B327785
02-20-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANNA NASONOVA, Defendant and Appellant.
Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. PA089507 Hilleri G. Merritt, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
EDMON, P. J.
Anna Nasonova appeals from a judgment entered after she pleaded no contest to unlawfully causing a fire. Nasonova's appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, asking us to review the record independently. Doing so, we discern no reversible error and dismiss the appeal.
An information charged Nasonova with two counts of arson of a property of another (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)).
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
At the preliminary hearing, Officer Peter York testified that on April 27, 2017, he responded to a radio call about burned trees. When he arrived at the location, Deputy Sheriff Jason Contreras pointed out a suspect, Nasonova, who had been in the area of the trees.
Officer Jose Sanchez, an arson investigator, testified that he spoke with several witnesses. The owner of a business located across the street from the burned trees told Officer Sanchez that a young woman had told her that morning that she was hungry and homeless. Later that morning, the business owner saw the same young woman tugging on the branches of juniper trees across the street. An off-duty officer told Officer Sanchez that while driving past the trees he saw a young woman standing two feet from a tree that was on fire. Nobody else was near the tree. The off-duty officer called 911 and continued to watch the woman, who was dragging a palm frond that she held to another tree, as if to set the other tree on fire. Another witness, who was driving by the trees that morning, told Officer Sanchez that she saw Nasonova standing near burning trees and flicking a lighter. This witness watched Nasonova go into a nearby store, engage someone in conversation, and point toward the trees while flicking a lighter. Fire Battalion Chief Ruda told Officer Sanchez that he asked Nasonova if she set the trees on fire and she said," 'Yes I did. I did it out of love.' "
When Officer Sanchez arrested Nasonova, who had been placed on a mental evaluation hold, she asked what she was being arrested for, and when told for arson, she asked," 'for the trees?' "
Officer Sanchez examined the location of the fire. He could not find any accidental source of ignition, and he ruled out any electrical, mechanical, or natural sources of ignition. Eight trees had burned, a wrought iron fence sustained fire damage, a cinder block wall sustained heat damage, and a Department of Water and Power pole was charred from intense heat and possible flame impingement.
The trial court denied a defense motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence and held Nasonova to answer on two counts of arson of property of another (§ 451, subd. (d)).
In December 2021, the trial court declared a doubt as to Nasonova's mental competence under section 1368, suspended proceedings, and appointed a psychiatrist to examine Nasonova and prepare a report. In September 2022, the trial court found Nasonova competent and reinstated criminal proceedings.
On October 17, 2022, Nasonova, pursuant to a negotiated plea, pleaded no contest to two counts of recklessly causing a fire (§ 452, subd. (c)). The trial court sentenced her to two years eight months in prison, time served. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts. The trial court thereafter denied Nasonova's request for a certificate of probable cause.
The information was amended to allege the two new counts under section 452, subdivision (c).
This appeal followed. Court-appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that raised no issues and asked this court to independently review the record under People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. We directed appellant's counsel to send Nasonova the record and a copy of the opening brief, and we advised that within 30 days of the date of the notice, Nasonova could submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments she wished this court to consider. Nasonova did not submit a supplemental brief.
A defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or guilty without a certificate of probable cause may only challenge the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea's validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676-677 &fn. 3.) Nasonova did not make a suppression motion below, and we discern no issues arising after entry of her plea affecting its validity.
We have examined the record and are satisfied no arguable issues exist, and Nasonova's attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: LAVIN, J. EGERTON, J.