People v. Sterling CA2/1

Filed 2/26/14 P. v. Sterling CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B249431

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA085335) v.

QUINN D. STERLING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Scott T. Millington, Judge. Affirmed. ______ Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and John Yang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

As relevant, an information, filed on October 11, 2012, charged Quinn D. Sterling with the attempt to burn property (Pen. Code, § 455, subd. (a)1) and the arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d)). The information specially alleged that Sterling had a prior serious or violent felony conviction for criminal threats (§ 422) that qualified as a strike under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and that as a serious felony subjected him to a five-year enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a). The information also specially alleged that Sterling had served six prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). After trial, the jury found Sterling guilty of arson of property. It was unable to reach a verdict on the charge of attempt to burn property, and the trial court declared a mistrial as to, and then later dismissed, that count. Based on Sterling’s admissions that his prior criminal threats conviction qualified as a strike under the Three Strikes law and subjected him to the section 667, subdivision (a)(1), enhancement and that he had served five prior prison terms pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), the court found those special allegations true. The court sentenced Sterling to a state prison term of 7 years 8 months, consisting of the low term of 16 months for the arson of property, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus five years for the section 667, subdivision (a), enhancement. The court struck the five prior-prison-term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). DISCUSSION 1. Substantial Evidence Supports Sterling’s Conviction for Arson of Property Sterling contends the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s determination that he was the perpetrator who set fire to his girlfriend Teneka Berry’s car so as to uphold his conviction for arson of property. We disagree. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the judgment and presume the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence in support of the judgment.