People v. Powers CA4/1

Filed 6/25/24 P. v. Powers CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083054

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN445093)

GREGORY ALEXANDER POWERS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Gregory Alexander Powers appeals from his arson conviction. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); Powers did not file a supplemental brief on his

own behalf. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND After his arrest for starting a fire in the San Marcos Guitar Center’s rear loading dock, prosecutors charged Powers with arson of a structure,

(Pen. Code,1 § 451, subd. (c); count 1), and arson of property (§ 451, subd. (d); count 2). A jury convicted Powers of the lesser included offense of count 1— unlawfully causing a fire of a structure (§ 452, subd. (c)), and count 2. The trial court sentenced Powers to the middle term of two years on count 2 and stayed the sentence on count 1 pursuant to section 654. The trial court awarded Powers 201 days of presentence custody credits, representing 101 days spent in custody and 100 days of section 4019 conduct credits. Finding Powers lacked the financial ability to pay fines and fees, the court did not order him to pay any. Powers filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asking us to review the record for error under Wende and Anders. Counsel identified two potential issues to assist us in our independent review: (1) whether the trial court erred when it instructed the jury in CALCRIM No. 1515 [Arson]; and (2) whether the trial court prejudicially erred when it instructed on CALCRIM No. 372 [Defendant’s Flight]. Both Powers’s counsel and this court informed Powers of his right to file a supplemental brief, but Powers declined to do so. III. DISCUSSION We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders, and considered the issues identified by Powers’s counsel. We conclude there