Filed 5/22/24 P. v. Clason CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CASEY JAY CLASON,

Defend ant and Appellant. D082365

(Super. Ct. No. SCS315468)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Maryann D ’ Addezio, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew Aaron Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appell ant

. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Casey Jay Clason appeals the judgment sentencing him to prison for six years after a jury found him guilty of arson and he admitted a prior conviction of arson. Appointed counsel filed a brief in which he assert ed no claims of error and invit ed us to review the record independently for reversible error. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having
reviewed the record and found no prejudicial error, we affirm.2 BACKGROUND Ulysses Andrade was waitin g in a drive

- through lane at a coffee shop when he noticed flames in dumpster s behind the shop and saw Clason in side
the locked enclosure surrounding the dumpsters

. Clason put burning
cardboard into the dumpster s and kicked burning cardboard under them

. Andrade summoned law enforcement

. D eputy S heriff Chris Drouin arrived at the scene , saw the fire in the dumpsters , and saw Clason pick up burning cardboard from the ground and put it into one of the dumpsters. Police Officer Tim Biffle also arrived at the scene and saw Clason ignit e cardboard and other trash that was on the ground and put it into the dumpsters. After Drouin got a key for the
enclosure from the coffee shop supervisor and unlocked it , Clason exited the
enclosure. Fire fighters extinguish ed the fire. The People charged Clason with arson of property (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d)) and alleged as an enhancement that he had a prior felony arson conviction ( id. , § 451.1, subd. (a)(1)). He pled not guilty, and the case proceeded to a jury tria l. Before trial, the court ruled Clason could not introduce evidence of
statements he made to law enforcement officers at the scene and could not make any reference to his mental health. At trial, the People presented testimony from Andrade, Drouin, Biff le, and other witnesses as well as photographs and video surveillance concerning the current arson. Over Clason’s objection, t he People presented testimony , photographs, and video surveillance concerning the prior arson. The jury found Clason guilty on t he arson charge, and he admitted the enhancement allegation.3

At the sentencing hearing, t he court denied Clason’s motion to dismiss the enhancement for the prior arson conviction

. (See Pen. Code, § 1385, subd. (c)

. ) The court imposed an aggregate prison term of six years, two years for
the arson ( id. , § 451, subd. (d)) plus four years for the enhancement ( id. , § 451.1, subd. (a)(1))

. DISCUSSION Clason’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he summarized the facts and proceedings, rais e d no claims o f error , and ask ed us to conduct an independent review of the record for reversible error. (See Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d at p. 441 [ appellate court must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief which raises no speci fic issues”].) To assist us in conducting that review , c ounsel listed the following issues for
consideration : 1. “Whether the trial court prejudicially erred by allowing prior bad acts evidence under Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision (b)?”

2. “Did the tri al court prejudicially err by excluding evidence of defendant’s demeanor, behavior, or mental health?”

3. “Were all necessary jury instructions given?”

4. “Whether substantial evidence supports the finding of guilt on count 1 [arson of property]?”

5. “Did the trial court abuse its discretion by not striking an enhancement under Penal Code section 1385?” (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744 ( Anders ) [appointed counsel who raises no claims of error must file a “brief referring to anything
in the record that might arguably support the appeal”] .) We advised Clason he could file a suppleme ntal brief, but he did not. We have reviewed the entire record, as required by Anders , supra , 386 U.S. 738, and Wende , supra , 25 Cal.3d 436, and determined there are no4

grounds for reversal of the judgment. We have also determined Clason received competent representation on appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

IRION, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DATO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.