People v. Henderson CA3, C091536M

Defendant Demetrius Henderson was charged with arson of forest land (Pen. Code §451(c)), resisting/obstructing an officer (§148(a)(1)), and battery on an officer (§243(b)).
Witnesses and surveillance showed Henderson, naked and covered in dirt/brush, near shrubbery beyond a parking-lot fence; a roughly 10-by-10-foot uphill burn area at the base of a bush was still smoldering when officers arrived.
Fire inspector Michael Ham testified Henderson, who possessed lighters and a mirror, was the likely originator of the fire; officers found dense brush and shrubbery nearby in photos and video.
While detained, Henderson threw a one-gallon jug (smelled like urine) at an officer, was arrested, resisted while attempting to flee, and was convicted by a jury on all counts.
The trial court sentenced Henderson to the midterm (four years) on the arson count, imposed various fines/assessments, and reserved victim restitution; Henderson appealed.
On appeal Henderson argued (1) insufficient evidence that the burned area qualified as “forest land” (defined in Penal Code §450(b) to include "brush covered land"), and (2) the court erred in assessing his ability to pay based on an assumption he would use disability (SSI) benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether burned area qualified as “forest land” ("brush covered land")	Evidence (expert testimony, photos, video, proximity to shrubbery, presence of brush) sufficiently showed brush-covered land	"Brush covered" should mean continuous/dense brush or large tract; a small burned patch near scattered brush is insufficient	Conviction affirmed. "Brush covered land" given its plain meaning (scrub vegetation); Costella supports that continuous dense coverage is not required; substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding
Ability to pay: whether court improperly relied on SSI/disability as source of payments	People conceded remand is appropriate if the court relied on SSI as the source of payments	Court erred if it assumed defendant would pay fines from protected disability benefits (violating 42 U.S.C. §407(a))	Remanded for clarification of the trial court’s ability-to-pay finding consistent with In re J.G.; otherwise judgment affirmed

In re V.V., 51 Cal.4th 1020 (Cal. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; avoid readings that render list items redundant)
People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (use ordinary/dictionary meanings in statutory interpretation)
In re J.G., 6 Cal.5th 867 (Cal. 2019) (limitations on relying on disability benefits as the assumed source to satisfy restitution/ability-to-pay)
People v. Costella, 11 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (treated "brush" as scrub vegetation and upheld arson conviction where vegetation evidence supported it)
Delaney v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1990) (statutory interpretation: determine lawmakers' intent starting with statutory words)