People v. Perryman CA3

Filed 10/15/15 P. v. Perryman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075570

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F03149)

v.

STACEY ANN PERRYMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Codefendants Stacey Ann Perryman and Bryan David Denton were on trial for murder, burglary, robbery, arson of an inhabited structure, and a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred in the course of a burglary. The trial court granted codefendant Denton’s mistrial motion midtrial (based on the prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence to the defense).1 The jury found codefendant Perryman (defendant)

1 Briefing in Denton’s separate appeal (case No. C077361) just recently commenced.

1

guilty only of arson of an inhabited structure. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced her to the upper term of eight years in state prison.

On appeal, defendant argues there is insufficient evidence of the arson element of “burning,” i.e., a fire’s consumption of any portion of a structure. (People v. Haggerty (1873) 46 Cal. 354, 355; In re Jesse L. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 161, 166 (Jesse L.).) She also asserts the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser offenses of attempted arson and unlawfully causing a fire. We shall affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties provide lengthy accounts of all circumstances underlying the charges. Given the jury’s verdicts and the nature of defendant’s arguments, we do not need to delve so deeply for purposes of this appeal.

The history between defendant and codefendant Denton, or between defendant and the victim is not germane. It is sufficient to note that the victim had stayed at a motel in Sacramento between February and March 2012, moving to an apartment in April. The manager of the motel introduced defendant (another motel occupant) to the victim as a person down on her luck when her employer-provided truck was stolen, after which defendant stayed for a week or two at the victim’s apartment. Defendant told a friend she was providing in-home care (she was a traveling registered nurse) in exchange for her lodging. When she moved out of the victim’s apartment, defendant told friends the victim had asked if he could pimp for her. Defendant stayed at a friend’s trailer for a couple of days before having the friend drop her off at a downtown bus station. She told him she planned to head home, which the friend thought was in Bakersfield. The records of her nursing registry indicated she was working in Palmdale on various dates between May 5 and May 24, 2012.