People v. Quang CA4/3

Filed 2/3/16 P. v. Quang CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G049784

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12CF3471)

THANH VAN QUANG, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing. Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Alastair J. Agcaoili, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Thanh Van Quang was convicted of arson of an inhabited structure for setting his motel room on fire. At trial, the evidence established the fire occurred after appellant poured gasoline in the room, but the exact cause of the fire could not be determined. Either appellant intentionally ignited the gasoline with a cigarette lighter, or combustion resulted when the vapors from the gasoline came into contact with the pilot light of the furnace in the room. Appellant contends that under these circumstances the jury should have been required to agree unanimously on the precise factual basis for his conviction. We disagree with that contention. However, as respondent concedes, the trial court erroneously believed it lacked authority to dismiss a sentence enhancement. Therefore, we will reverse appellant’s punishment on the enhancement and remand the matter for resentencing. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS On Friday, November 30, 2012, appellant was renting a second-story room at the Pueblo Motel in Santa Ana. Appellant was paid up through the weekend, but that afternoon he got into an argument with motel manager Myung Cha for having unauthorized guests in his room, and Cha told appellant he would have to leave the motel. Appellant got very angry and cursed Cha, but nothing more transpired at that point; appellant’s guests left his room, and Cha returned to his office. A short time later, appellant walked down to the corner gas station and bought a gallon-size gasoline container. He then filled the container with gasoline and took it back to his motel room. For the next twenty minutes, appellant removed clothing from his room and placed it on the walkway in front of his door. Then he reentered the room and closed the door. A minute later, an explosion occurred inside the room, and appellant was blown through the door and onto the walkway. Torched and tattered as he was, appellant gathered himself and headed toward the exit. However, Cha stopped him and called the police. In speaking with investigators, appellant initially blamed the fire on Cha, insisting he had nothing to do with it. However, appellant eventually admitted