From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roark

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 4, 2008
No. F054402 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2008)

Opinion

F054402

9-4-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE M. ROARK, Defendant and Appellant.

Alison E. Kaylor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon and David A. Rhodes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Not to be Published


OPINION

THE COURT

Before Vartabedian, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.

The Kern County Superior Court sentenced appellant Maurice M. Roark to a 3-year upper prison term after a jury found he committed a single count of arson of a truck in which he had been living. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d).) On appeal, Roark contends the prosecution failed to prove he lit or caused the fire. Finding sufficient evidence to support the finding, we will affirm the conviction.

Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

BACKGROUND

Evaristo Sandoval owned a 1972 Chevrolet pickup truck, which had been inoperable for several years. He kept the pickup parked in the yard of Mary Escalante, whose home he had been sharing, and allowed Roark to sleep in the truck. In mid-April 2007, Escalante told Sandoval that she heard a news report on television stating it was against the law to keep an abandoned or non-working vehicle and that she thought the city might impound the pickup.

About 3:00 p.m. on April 29, 2007, Sandoval told appellant he could no longer reside in the truck. Escalante loaned appellant a dolly to remove his personal belongings and noticed appellant became upset from the news. After appellant and his friend finished moving, they attended a barbecue party across the street at the home of Catherine Robles. At the barbecue, appellant smoked cigarettes and had access to a lighter.

Later that evening, Escalante heard her dogs barking and went outside. She saw appellant approximately 30 feet away leaving her yard and walking towards the street. After she finished talking to her dogs, she heard a loud "boom." She turned around and saw the truck on fire. Escalantes son and daughter both saw appellant on their property between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. Escalante then ran across the street after yelling for someone to call the fire department.

Robles noticed appellant had left the barbeque a couple of times and headed to Escalantes home towards where the truck was parked. The last time appellant returned from across the street, about 10 minutes to 8:00 p.m., Robles "knew something was wrong" because she noticed appellant "was actually walking really fast towards our house and he sat down like nothing had happened" and "he seemed kind of weird." When Escalante came to the Robles house, she yelled and cursed at appellant. When Escalante asked appellant why he set the truck on fire, he twice responded, "what truck?"

Appellant told Kern County Fire Department Investigator David Ross that he had not been to the truck since he moved his belongings around 3:00 p.m. that day. Chief Investigator Chris Angello also investigated the scene and observed a window had fallen out and the entire cab had been consumed by fire. He searched around the vehicle and did not see any external causes for a fire, and discovered the engine could not have caused the fire because it had not been operational in at least a year. He opined the pressure inside the cab blew out the window. From Angellos training and experience, he believed the fire was caused by arson initiated by lighting papers inside the cab.

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues insufficient evidence supported the jurys finding that he committed arson. He believes the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proof and that his conviction was based only on opportunity and motive in violation of his right to due process of law.

"A person is guilty of arson when he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land, or property." (§ 451.)

When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the reviewing court must determine "whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319.) We "must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) "Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence." (In re Michael D. (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 115, 126.) "`Arson, like other crimes, may and frequently must be proved by circumstantial evidence." (People v. Kneiling (1932) 127 Cal.App. 151, 153.)

Although the record lacks direct testimonial evidence that appellant burned the pickup truck, substantial circumstantial evidence supports the jurys conclusion appellant set fire to the vehicle. On the day of the fire, Sandoval told appellant he could no longer live in the truck, and appellant removed his belongings that afternoon. Later that day, appellant made several trips from the barbecue party, where he was seen with cigarettes and a lighter, to the area of the truck. Appellant made his last trip to the truck just before the fire. He walked away quickly and suspiciously and immediately sat down at the barbecue looking "weird." Escalante saw him walking away from the pickup when she heard the window blow out and saw the truck on fire. The timing of appellants actions and the explosion was so close that Escalante immediately believed appellant started the fire and followed him to the neighbors home. When confronted with the accusation, appellant pretended he did not know to what truck she was referring.

In addition to motive and opportunity, the proximity and timing of appellants last trip to the truck and the explosion was particularly incriminating. Although the evidence was circumstantial, it was likely he left the barbecue, went to the truck, lit a paper inside, closed the door, and quickly walked away from the scene to avoid detection. He returned to the barbecue and tried to act as though nothing had happened, but Robles found him acting so strangely that she was unconvinced. The fire investigators confirmed that the fire did not start spontaneously or spread from another source, and there is no evidence that anyone else was near the truck after appellant finished moving his belongings earlier in the afternoon.

Although appellant suggests other possible explanations as to what may have happened, this courts power is limited to reviewing whether the evidence supports the findings actually made. Here, the evidence was more than sufficient to establish appellant caused the truck to be set on fire. Accordingly, the judgment must be affirmed.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Roark

Court of Appeal of California
Sep 4, 2008
No. F054402 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Roark

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE M. ROARK, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Sep 4, 2008

Citations

No. F054402 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 4, 2008)