People v. Ehman CA3

Filed 6/27/25 P. v. Ehman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101978

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. LOD-CR-FE- 2023-0012876) v.

DAVID ANTHONY EHMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant David Anthony Ehman has asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to him, we will affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND After Ehman repeatedly took food from a gas station convenience store without paying, the owner instructed his employees not to allow Ehman on the property. After the employees informed Ehman that he could no longer enter the store, he started a fire in a dumpster behind the store in the middle of the night. By the time the fire was put out, the dumpster was so badly burned that the owner had to replace it. Later that day, Ehman entered the store and tried to pick up a lighter. An employee asked Ehman not to take anything and told him he was not allowed inside. Ehman grabbed a lighter and struggled with the employee over it before threatening to burn the store to the ground. The People charged Ehman with arson of another’s property (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)),1 making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)), and attempted robbery (§ 211), and alleged that Ehman had previously been convicted of a serious felony within the meaning of section 1170.12, subdivision (b). At an arraignment hearing, the trial court struck the prior serious felony conviction allegation, finding that the alleged offense did not qualify as a serious felony. After the preliminary hearing, Ehman was held to answer for arson and making criminal threats, but not for attempted robbery. Ehman’s appointed counsel then declared a doubt as to his competence to stand trial. In response, Ehman moved to replace his counsel. The trial court denied his request, noting his counsel had a duty to report any doubts as to Ehman’s competence. Ehman refused to speak to any of the three psychologists appointed to investigate his competency. At the hearing to determine his competency, Ehman insisted that no doubt should have been declared as to his competency and that his speedy trial right had been violated.