Filed 7/7/17 P. v. Resendiz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROLANDO RESENDIZ,

Defendant and Appellant.
D070435



(Super. Ct. No. SCD261520)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L. Meza, Judge. Affirmed.

Marianne Harguindeguy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Rolando Resendiz appeals a judgment following his jury convictions on three counts of arson of an inhabited structure (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)) and three counts of arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An information charged Resendiz with three counts of arson of an inhabited structure (§ 451, subd. (b)) (counts 1, 2, & 6) and three counts of arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)) (counts 3, 4, & 5). At trial, the prosecution presented evidence on, inter alia, the arson of three inhabited structures (i.e., 5203 Landis Street, 5205 Landis Street, and 5290 Ogden Street).
At about 12:55 a.m. on March 31, 2015, Thien Minh Dang was watching television in his apartment at 5203 Landis Street when he heard his apartment window crack and saw flames outside. He went outside and saw two burning mattresses leaning up against the exterior wall of his apartment. His initial attempt to douse the mattresses with water was unsuccessful, so he pulled the mattresses away from the wall and into the apartment building's courtyard. He then used a water hose to put out the fire-engulfed mattresses. Dang also woke up his neighbor, Tien Minh Nguyen, informed him of the mattress fires, and asked him to call police.
Nguyen, who lived at 5205 Landis Street, was awakened by Dang and went outside. He saw one or two mattresses on fire in the apartment complex's courtyard and another mattress burning behind his apartment. On Dang's request, he called 911.
Later that day, Lawrence Gordon, a City of San Diego fire investigator, went to the Landis Street apartment complex to investigate the cause of the fires. The complex consisted of two buildings that were separated by a 20-foot-wide courtyard. He saw some mattresses in the courtyard that were charred and another mattress behind one of the buildings that was also charred. Identifying photographs he had taken of the scene, he described how the burning mattresses had charred the stucco and cracked a window of the west building. He also described two photographs that showed damage to the east building where a mattress had been leaned up against its exterior wall. He testified the mattresses were intentionally set on fire by a person using a match or lighter.
At about 1:00 a.m. on April 4, 2015, Han Sim was sleeping at his house at 5290 Ogden Street when he heard police knocking on his window. When he and his wife left the house, he saw a bag of children's toys and a chair were on fire on his front porch.
Later that day, James Shadoan, a City of San Diego fire investigator, went to Sim's house to investigate the cause of the fire. Identifying photographs he had taken of the scene, he described how there was fire debris on the front porch of the house. In particular, he described how the wood top of the porch's metal railing sustained damage.
Following the March 31, 2015, fires at the Landis Street apartment complex and three dumpster fires that were set shortly thereafter, police officers set up surveillance in the area that they suspected was used for ingress and egress by the person who set the fires. At about 1:08 a.m. on April 4, a police detective saw a person walking through an easement between two houses and toward 5290 Ogden Street, but then he lost sight of the person. About 30 to 45 seconds later, the person (Resendiz) reappeared and walked toward the detective. When another officer informed him the corner house (i.e., 5290 Landis Street) was on fire, the detective told the officer to place Resendiz in handcuffs and went to the house. There was debris on fire on its porch. He awakened its residents and helped put out the fire on the porch.
Other evidence tended to connect Resendiz to the March 31, 2015 fires, including a search on his mobile phone for "fire in City Heights San Diego" that was made at 8:26 a.m. on March 31. One of the pairs of shoes found in a search of his apartment appeared to be similar to the shoes worn by a person shown in a surveillance camera video recording at about 1:31 a.m. on March 31 near the location of one of the dumpster fires.
The jury found Resendiz guilty on all six counts. The trial court sentenced him to a total term of seven years four months, consisting of the middle term of five years for counts 1 and 2, to be served concurrently, a consecutive eight-month term for count 3, the middle term of two years on counts 4 and 5, to be served concurrently, and a consecutive term of one year eight months for count 6. Resendiz timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Resendiz's appointed counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presents no argument for reversal of the judgment, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel identifies the following possible, but not arguable, issues for our review: (1) was there substantial evidence to support his convictions on counts 1 and 2 because there was no evidence that the inhabited structures were burned or charred; and (2) was there substantial evidence to support his conviction on count 6 because there was no evidence that the inhabited structure was burned or charred?
We granted Resendiz permission to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf, but he has not responded. A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738 has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. Resendiz has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:




HUFFMAN, J.




HALLER, J.