People v. Pineda CA2/7, B309607

In August 2017 George Pineda set fire to a two‑story house using gasoline; three children (ages 11–15) suffered serious burn injuries and were hospitalized. Pineda was arrested the same day, admitted starting the fire, and said he intended to kill himself.
The People charged multiple counts including five attempted murder counts, three arson counts (two §451(a), one §451(b)), and three counts of child abuse (§273a(a)) alleging great bodily injury enhancements.
A jury acquitted Pineda of attempted murder but convicted him of the arson and child abuse counts and found the enhancement allegations true.
After conviction, counsel requested pretrial mental‑health diversion under Penal Code §1001.36; the trial court found Pineda eligible but denied diversion as unsuitable.
The court sentenced Pineda to an aggregate 20 years and miscalculated his presentence custody credits. Pineda appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether multiple arson convictions (multiple subdivisions of §451) may stand for a single act of setting one building on fire	The People ultimately conceded the multiple arson convictions were improper.	Pineda argued a single act of arson cannot support multiple convictions under different subdivisions of §451.	Reversed the three arson convictions; remanded for the People to elect one arson count, reinstate conviction on that count, and for resentencing.
Whether the trial court erred in denying pretrial mental‑health diversion under §1001.36	The People argued Pineda was not suitable for diversion (citing his conduct and trial demeanor) and questioned eligibility.	Pineda argued the court improperly relied on observations of his courtroom behavior and lacked substantial evidence to deny diversion.	Affirmed. Court found Pineda eligible but unsuitable; even if error occurred, harmless because no recommended treatment program was presented to satisfy §1001.36(c)(1)(A).
Whether the trial court miscalculated presentence custody credits	The People conceded the credits were miscalculated.	Pineda contended he was entitled to 1,192 days actual custody and 15% conduct credits (178 days), total 1,370 days.	Agreed. Directed correction of presentence custody credits and the abstract of judgment.

People v. Shiga, 34 Cal.App.5th 466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (single act of arson cannot support multiple convictions under different §451 subdivisions)
People v. Vidana, 1 Cal.5th 632 (Cal. 2016) (§954 does not permit multiple convictions for the same act framed as different statements of the same offense)
People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (summarizes §1001.36 diversion framework and court's discretionary role)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (when part of a sentence is stricken, full resentencing may be appropriate)
People v. Denman, 218 Cal.App.4th 800 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (defendant entitled to actual custody credit from arrest through sentencing)
People v. McInnis, 63 Cal.App.5th 853 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (trial court may reconsider discretionary sentencing choices after reversal of a count)