People v. Labudis CA4/3

Filed 2/4/21 P. v. Labudis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058850

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19WF2176)

JOHN WILLIAM LABUDIS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick Donahue, Judge. Affirmed. Stephane Quinn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury found defendant John William Labudis guilty of arson of a structure. (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c).) The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on three years of formal probation on condition he serve 360 days in county jail. Defendant received credit of 143 actual days and 143 days of conduct credit for a total of 286 days. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel did not argue against defendant but advised the court he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, but he has not done so. We have examined the entire record and have not found an arguable issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS

Following our usual standard of review on appeal, we recite the facts “in the light most favorable to the judgment . . . .” (People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 578.) In the early morning of September 4, 2019, the owner of a liquor store in Garden Grove, California, received a telephone call from a woman telling him that his “store [was] burning.” The fire was extinguished by the time the store owner arrived at the store, but he observed burn marks on the storefront window. The store owner immediately called the police. Garden Grove Police Officer Acosta responded to the call at about 6:30 a.m. and inspected the damage. Acosta inquired whether the store owner had a video surveillance system, and the store owner responded that he did. In fact, the store had a 16-camera surveillance system.