People v. Pittman CA2/6

Filed 3/1/22 P. v. Pittman CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B310483 (Super. Ct. No. KA124007) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

CLYDE OZELL PITTMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Clyde Ozell Pittman appeals the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of arson of a structure (Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c)) and making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, appellant admitted that he had a prior strike and serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subds. (a)-(j), 1170.12, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of nine years and four months in state prison, consisting of the midterm of four years for the arson doubled for the strike prior, plus sixteen months (one-third the midterm

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

doubled) for the criminal threat. Appellant contends the court erred in failing to give a unanimity instruction (CALCRIM No. 3500) on the criminal threats count, and in accepting the jury’s verdict in appellant’s absence rather than granting a continuance. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At about 5:30 p.m. on January 27, 2020, appellant’s mother Genevieve Urzua was at home with her husband when she saw a bright light around her front door. Urzua opened the door and saw flames. She closed the door, called 911, and left the house through the back door. Neighbors helped her extinguish the fire with a garden hose. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Detective Alex Miller went to Urzua’s residence in response to the 911 call. The front door and door frame were charred and there was a partially filled gas can on the front lawn. Based on his training and experience, Detective Miller concluded that the fire was deliberately started. When interviewed, Urzua and her husband said they had no idea who might have started the fire. The following morning, Urzua spoke with appellant on the telephone and asked him “why did you try to burn me?” Appellant replied with a text stating, “That’s what you get. You didn’t learn.” At 3:34 p.m. that afternoon, appellant sent Urzua text messages stating “Identity theft is hard, but I’m in your backyard” and “I’m coming for you G. . . . asleep, please or at work.”2 At 3:48 p.m., appellant You fucked up. Coming for you” and “sleeping.” At 4:12, he texted “You all die.” Urzua called Detective Miller and left a voicemail stating that appellant had essentially admitted starting the fire and was