Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. 08F6493
BLEASE, Acting P. J.
Defendant Steve Thomas Starr pleaded guilty to arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)), pleaded no contest to assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted that he used an accelerant in the commission of a felony (§ 451.1, subd. (a)(5)). In exchange, four related counts were dismissed. He was sentenced to state prison for 14 years, consisting of the upper term of eight years for arson, the upper term of five years for the enhancement, and one year for the assault. Defendant was awarded 172 days’ actual custody credit and 25 days’ conduct credit, for a total of 197 days’ credit, ordered to make restitution to his victims, and ordered to pay a $2,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $2,000 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked (§ 1202.45), a $750 fine including penalty assessments, and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant did not request or obtain a certificate of probable cause.
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
As part of his plea, defendant waived his right to a jury trial on sentencing factors used to impose an aggravated term.
Because the matter was resolved by plea, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officer’s report.
In August 2008, Julie Starr was suffering from terminal cancer and defendant was her primary caregiver. On August 4, 2008, defendant took Starr to her brother’s home so that she could discuss financial issues related to her medical treatment. While there, she became extremely ill and asked to be taken to a hospital. When she telephoned defendant to inform him of these developments, he became angry and said he would “kill them all.” Perceiving the comment as a threat, Starr relayed the comment to her brother, Charlie Brown, who in turn reported the threat to the Redding Police Department.
At 10:00 p.m. that evening, Redding police officers contacted Starr about the threats. Thereafter, an officer spoke to defendant, who stated that Brown and his family were becoming increasingly intrusive and were trying to intervene during Starr’s remaining time alive. He denied threatening to kill anyone but admitted having threatened to “whoop some ass.”
A police officer then spoke to Brown, who opined that defendant was “unstable.” Brown said he would be taking his family “away from here” in order to “sleep good tonight.”
At 11:50 p.m. that night, one of the investigating officers responded to a call regarding a structure fire. He recognized the address as the Brown residence. Neighbors advised the officer that a green Toyota had been in the area just prior to the fire. The driver, later identified as defendant, retrieved a bucket or a tub from the back of the Toyota.
A fire investigator determined that the fire “occurred using an unknown open flame device to ignite the combustible vapors given off from the orange plastic bucket in which the dark and light-colored cloth material was located.... There was no source of ignition at this area (garage of the residence) that would have been a natural cause or accidental cause....”
The property loss resulting from the fire was estimated to be at least $87,800.
Mrs. Brown told police that their two young daughters normally sleep in a room located above the area where the fire was started but on the night of the fire, the family had fled to avoid defendant.
In an interview with probation, defendant claimed he had gone to the Brown residence to vandalize it with spray paint. As he bent over the bucket, he dropped a burning marijuana cigarette that ignited some rags. When he was unable to extinguish the fire, he got scared and fled.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief asking in part for the appointment of a new attorney to represent him. This court denied that request on June 11, 2009.
The supplemental brief also sets forth five “arguments for withdrawal of plea and or reduced sentence.” However, defendant’s failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) precludes him from challenging the validity of the plea. (People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1098-1099; People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 74-75.) The supplemental brief makes no argument for a “reduced sentence” based on matters occurring subsequent to the plea.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.