1

Filed 8/26/24 P. v. Savala CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ALBERT SAVALA,

Defendant and Appellant. C099571

(Super. Ct. No. 23FE005618)

Appointed counsel for defendant Albert Savala filed an opening brief that sets

forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether

there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.)

Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to Savala , we

will affirm the judgment.2 FACT UAL BACKGROUND

The People charged Savala with arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (b)) 1 and

possession of ammunition by a prohibited person (§ 30305, subd. (a)). As to aggravating

circumstances, the People alleged that: (1) the crime involved great violence, great

bodily harm, threat of bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree o f cruelty,

viciousness, or callousness (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1) ), 2 (2) Savala had

engaged in violent conduct indicating a serious danger to society ( r ule 4.421(b)(1));

(3) Savala’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing seriousness ( r ule

4.421(b)(2)) ; and (4) Savala had served a prior prison term ( r ule 4.421(b)(3)).

Prior to trial, the trial court denied Savala’s Marsden motion. (See People v.

Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.) At trial, Savala’s mother testified that she and her

husband left the house they lived in with Savala after they heard Savala “hollering” in the

early morning of April 18, 2023. When they returned , part of the house was on fire. A

responding officer observed evidence of a fire and shell casings from ammunition outside

the house

. Another officer found exploded ammunition cartridges in the debris where the

fire occurred. He also found live ammunition rounds in the debris a nd in Savala’s

bedroom

. A fire investigator testified that in his opinion the fire started on the front

porch and was intentionally set by a person.

Savala did not testify. In closing argument, defense counsel argued the

prosecution failed to prove the arson charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel

conceded Savala was guilty of unlawfully possessing ammunition.

The jury found Savala guilty of arson and possession of ammunition by a

prohibited person. The People dismissed all alleged aggravating circumstances except

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.3

for the circumstance that Savala’s prior convictions were numerous or of increasing

seriousness. The trial court ultimately found this aggravating circumstance to not be true.

The court imposed the low term of three years for the arson and a concurrent term of 16

months (the low term) for the ammunition possession.

Savala timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural

history of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there

are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.) Savala was

advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date

the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and Savala has not filed a

supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende , we find

no arguable errors that are favorable to Savala . Accordingly, we will affirm the

judgment.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/ EARL, P. J.

We concur:

/s/ ROBIE, J.

/s/ RENNER, J.