1

Filed 7/28/16 P. v. Vionnet CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MAURICE ALFREDO VIONNET,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A147161

 (Mendocino County

 Super. Ct. No. SCUCCRCR1581316- 

 002)

Maurice Alfredo Vionnet (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after he 

pleaded no contest to manufacturing a controlled substance, honey oil (Health & 

Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), endangering the health of a child (Pen. Code, § 273a, 

subd. (a)1), unlawfully causing a fire to a structure (§ 452, subd. (b)), and two 

misdemeanor counts in a separate pending matter, and the trial court sentenced him to 

four years and four months in state prison. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant 

to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent 

review of the record. Appellant was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and

did not do so. Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no 

issues that require further briefing, and shall affirm the judgment.

 

1All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 
2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 11, 2015, an information was filed charging appellant with manufacturing 

a controlled substance, honey oil (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a), count 1), 

endangering the health of a child (§ 273a, subd. (a), count 2), and unlawfully causing a 

fire to a structure (§ 452, subd. (b), count 3). Appellant entered an open no contest plea 

to each of the charges, along with two misdemeanor counts in a separate pending matter 

in Case No. 15-83407. The trial court denied probation and sentenced appellant to four 

years and four months in state prison, as follows: the low term of three years on count 1, 

a consecutive one year and four months as one-third the midterm on count 2, and a 

concurrent three years as the midterm on count 3. 

On April 14, 2015 at 6:47 a.m., the Long Valley Fire Department responded to a 

report of a structure fire at appellant’s home in Laytonville, California. The two-story, 

single-family residence was totally engulfed in flames when emergency vehicles arrived 

at the scene. Appellant’s nine-year-old daughter, who was sleeping in a bedroom above 

the garage with her 12-year-old brother, was woken up by an explosion. She woke up the 

rest of the family—her father (appellant, mother, and brother—and the family was able to 

get out of the house before the entire structure burned down. 

Fire investigators determined the fire resulted from an explosion in the refrigerator

and freezer. Investigators smelled burned marijuana and found over 100 used butane 

canisters, over 2,043 grams of “shake marijuana,” and other items indicative of a butane 

“honey oil lab” in the garage. When questioned by police, appellant said he believed the 

fire was caused by an electrical issue, and denied anything in the garage would have 

caused the fire. He admitted he had made honey oil three weeks prior but said he had not 

done so recently. In his statement to probation, appellant explained that he had been 

attempting to make honey oil for his own medicinal needs. He said he suffered from 

seizures and had discovered that marijuana provided relief from his seizures, and that 

once he started using medicinal marijuana, he was able to stop taking other “powerful 

prescription drugs.” Appellant later discovered that “honey oil,” a form of concentrated 

cannabis, was effective in treating his condition. He admitted he knew very little about 
3

the process of making honey oil and said a friend had told him to place the honey oil in a 

refrigerator or freezer. He said he had made only a few ounces, but acknowledged, “I 

guess enough to cause issues.” He admitted he knew what he did was wrong, expressed 

remorse, and said he “will never do it again.” The owner of the house that was destroyed 

estimated that his out of pocket loss, after insurance paid for damages, was $11,000. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 

25 Cal.3d 436, and asks this court to independently review the entire record to determine 

if it contains any issues which would, if resolved favorably to the appellant, result in 

reversal or modification. Appellant’s no contest plea and failure to obtain a certificate of 

probable cause limit the potential scope of his appeal to “grounds that arose after entry of 

the plea and do not affect the plea’s validity” or “the denial of a motion to suppress 

evidence” under section 1538.5. (§ 1237.5, Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) We have 

examined the entire record and have found no reasonably arguable appellate issue, and 

we are satisfied that counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (People v. Kelly

(2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Pollak, J.

_________________________

Siggins, J.

A147161