People v. Clason CA4/1 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/22/24 P. v. Clason CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D082365
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS315468)
CASEY JAY CLASON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Maryann D’Addezio, Judge. Affirmed.
Matthew Aaron Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Casey Jay Clason appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for
six years after a jury found him guilty of arson and he admitted a prior
conviction of arson. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which he asserted no
claims of error and invited us to review the record independently for
reversible error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having
reviewed the record and found no prejudicial error, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ulysses Andrade was waiting in a drive-through lane at a coffee shop
when he noticed flames in dumpsters behind the shop and saw Clason inside
the locked enclosure surrounding the dumpsters. Clason put burning
cardboard into the dumpsters and kicked burning cardboard under them.
Andrade summoned law enforcement.
Deputy Sheriff Chris Drouin arrived at the scene, saw the fire in the
dumpsters, and saw Clason pick up burning cardboard from the ground and
put it into one of the dumpsters. Police Officer Tim Biffle also arrived at the
scene and saw Clason ignite cardboard and other trash that was on the
ground and put it into the dumpsters. After Drouin got a key for the
enclosure from the coffee shop supervisor and unlocked it, Clason exited the
enclosure. Firefighters extinguished the fire.
The People charged Clason with arson of property (Pen. Code, § 451,
subd. (d)) and alleged as an enhancement that he had a prior felony arson
conviction (id., § 451.1, subd. (a)(1)). He pled not guilty, and the case
proceeded to a jury trial.
Before trial, the court ruled Clason could not introduce evidence of
statements he made to law enforcement officers at the scene and could not
make any reference to his mental health. At trial, the People presented
testimony from Andrade, Drouin, Biffle, and other witnesses as well as
photographs and video surveillance concerning the current arson. Over
Clason’s objection, the People presented testimony, photographs, and video
surveillance concerning the prior arson. The jury found Clason guilty on the
arson charge, and he admitted the enhancement allegation.
2
At the sentencing hearing, the court denied Clason’s motion to dismiss
the enhancement for the prior arson conviction. (See Pen. Code, § 1385, subd.
(c).) The court imposed an aggregate prison term of six years, two years for
the arson (id., § 451, subd. (d)) plus four years for the enhancement (id.,
§ 451.1, subd. (a)(1)).
DISCUSSION
Clason’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he summarized the
facts and proceedings, raised no claims of error, and asked us to conduct an
independent review of the record for reversible error. (See Wende, supra, 25
Cal.3d at p. 441 [appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record
whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no specific issues”].)
To assist us in conducting that review, counsel listed the following issues for
consideration:
1. “Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing prior bad
acts evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b)?”
2. “Did the trial court prejudicially err by excluding evidence of
defendant’s demeanor, behavior, or mental health?”
3. “Were all necessary jury instructions given?”
4. “Whether substantial evidence supports the finding of guilt on
count 1 [arson of property]?”
5. “Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not striking an
enhancement under Penal Code section 1385?”
(See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 (Anders) [appointed
counsel who raises no claims of error must file a “brief referring to anything
in the record that might arguably support the appeal”].) We advised Clason
he could file a supplemental brief, but he did not.
We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Anders, supra, 386
U.S. 738, and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no
3
grounds for reversal of the judgment. We have also determined Clason
received competent representation on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
IRION, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
DATO, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
4