Filed 6/20/17 P. v. Seyer CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PAUL HOLMES SEYER,

Defendant and Appellant.

F072643

(Super. Ct. No. F15902183)


OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hilary A. Chittick, Judge.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
A jury found Paul Holmes Seyer guilty of arson and misdemeanor resisting arrest. Appellate counsel could not identify any arguable issues in this appeal. After completing our own thorough review of the record, we agree there are no arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The information charged Seyer with arson of the property of another (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) and misdemeanor resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)).
Prior to the preliminary hearing, the trial court granted Seyer’s request to represent himself and relieved the public defender. Prior to jury selection, the trial court held a hearing to determine if statements made by Seyer at the scene and in the hospital violated Seyer’s constitutional rights as established in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. After hearing evidence from two of the police officers who were involved in the incident, and confirming with Seyer that he did not want to testify at the hearing, the trial court concluded Seyer’s statements were admissible, a conclusion consistent with the testimony obtained at the hearing.
Heather Moua was the first witness at the trial. On April 4, 2015, while working at a coffee store, Moua observed Seyer standing outside the door looking into the store. She approached him and asked if he needed anything. Seyer said he wanted some coffee. Moua told him he could come into the store and purchase something if he wanted to do so. Seyer kept saying “Can you give me some coffee?” Moua again told Seyer he could purchase a cup of coffee if he wanted to do so. Moua then went back inside the store. Seyer entered a few minutes later.
Seyer kept asking for coffee, and Moua stated she would not give him a cup of coffee for free, but would sell him one. Moua also told Seyer that if he was not going to purchase anything, he would have to leave the store. Seyer became upset and called Moua names. Moua told Seyer that if he did not leave she would call the police. Seyer did not leave so Moua called the police. When the police arrived, Seyer left the store. Moua did not know a fire was burning in a trash receptacle until the police informed her of that fact.
Fresno Police Officer Bryon Urton was the first officer to respond to the disturbance at the store. When he arrived Seyer was inside the store. Urton noticed a large fire in a trash receptacle on the east side of the strip mall. Urton requested assistance from the fire department, then exited his vehicle. As he did so, Seyer exited the store and walked away from Urton. Urton identified himself as a police officer, and asked identifying questions. Seyer would not identify himself. Urton asked if Seyer had started the fire, and Seyer admitted he had done so to keep warm. Seyer then began talking in an abstract manner. As the conversation continued, Seyer became confrontational and aggressive, so Urton called for additional officers to assist him. Seyer threatened Urton several times. A K-9 officer arrived and Seyer became fixated on the dog. Seyer eventually began growling at the dog. Urton continued to attempt to deescalate the situation and obtain identifying information from Seyer. Seyer resisted any attempts by the officers to gain control over him. The officers were eventually able to control Seyer after he was shot with a stun gun. Urton found identification and two lighters, along with other items, in Seyer’s possessions.
Fresno Police Officer Kelly Wilkes also responded to the scene. When Wilkes arrived, he could see that Seyer was agitated and upset so he removed his stun gun and pointed it in Seyer’s general direction. Seyer threatened several officers. Wilkes confirmed Seyer’s focus on the K-9 officer and that Seyer barked and growled at the dog. Wilkes deployed his stun gun when Seyer resisted the other officers when they attempted to gain control of him. Seyer was then placed in handcuffs and transported to the hospital.
Wilkes spoke with Seyer at the hospital. When asked why he was at the coffee store, Seyer stated he had 50 children and was the chief of police. As such, Seyer though he was entitled to a free cup of coffee. When asked about the fire, Seyer stated he walked to the trash receptacle and stared at it until his eyes turned red. At that point, the blood moon started the fire.
Seyer chose not to testify after being informed he had the right to do so. He elected to rest without presenting any additional evidence.
The closing arguments were short, with the prosecutor arguing the case was simple because the evidence was undisputed. Seyer argued the officers were not credible, and they used excessive force to arrest him.
The jury found Seyer guilty as charged. Seyer requested, and was appointed, counsel to assist during the sentencing hearing. The trial court sentenced Seyer to the mitigated term of 16 months in prison for the arson count, and to time served for the resisting count.
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 asserting that after a thorough review of the record she could not identify any arguable issues in the case. By letter dated August 12, 2016, we invited Seyer to inform this court of any issues he wished us to address. Seyer did not respond to our invitation.
After our independent review of the record, we agree there are no arguable issues in the case. The charges arose out of a single incident, the presentation of evidence was limited to three witnesses, Seyer questioned the witnesses thoroughly, opening statements and closing arguments were well within the bounds of reason, the verdict is supported by overwhelming evidence, and the trial court imposed a mitigated sentence. We see no possible appellate issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.