People v. Sandoval CA4/1, D077538

Background

Defendant Victor Sandoval set eucalyptus branches on fire in a dry, brush-covered ten-acre preserve near homes; a witness saw him adding leaves to a pile and another videotaped him leaving the scene.
Sandoval admitted at trial he intentionally started the fire for a spiritual/‘church’ smell, said he cleared an area and stepped on the flames to extinguish them, then walked away while the pile still smoked and denied starting it when confronted.
An arson detective testified the fire was burning "quite well," posed a risk to nearby residences, and investigators found an empty whiskey can with stuffing near the scene (described as resembling a makeshift Molotov).
A jury convicted Sandoval of arson (Pen. Code § 451); the court sentenced him to three years’ probation and imposed various fines, assessments, and restitution, with payments to begin one year after sentencing at $35/month.
On appeal Sandoval raised five issues: insufficiency of evidence (and request to reduce to lesser included offense), ineffective assistance for not objecting to Molotov testimony, failure to order a competency hearing, improper flight instruction, and challenge to fines/assessments under inability-to-pay principles.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for arson / request to reduce to § 452	People: Evidence (admission, witness observations, arson expert) supports willful and malicious burning of forest land.	Sandoval: He only intended to burn eucalyptus leaves for a spiritual smell and tried to extinguish them; no malice or intent to burn forest land.	Affirmed: Substantial evidence supported arson; malice is implied from deliberate ignition and specific intent to burn forest land is not required. Jury not required to convict only of lesser included offense.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Molotov-cocktail testimony	People: Detective’s statements were admissible background; defense cross showed can was empty and not used.	Sandoval: Counsel should have objected to prejudicial Molotov reference.	Denied: No prejudice shown; cross-examination elicited that the can was empty/not used, blunting any prejudice.
Failure to order competency hearing under § 1368 / counsel ineffective for not moving	People: Statements about Holy Spirit and ritual burning were eccentric but not substantial evidence of incompetence or inability to assist counsel.	Sandoval: His trial testimony and odd courtroom remarks showed mental illness requiring a competency inquiry.	Denied: Remarks alone did not create a serious doubt of competence; counsel’s tactical use of those statements negated claim of ineffective assistance.
Instruction on flight (CALCRIM No. 372)	People: Evidence Sandoval walked away while fire still smoldered and denied starting it supports flight inference.	Sandoval: Insufficient evidence he fled or sought to avoid arrest; instruction improper.	Affirmed: Some evidence supported flight instruction; any instructional error harmless given jury instructions and overwhelming evidence.
Imposition of fines/assessments without ability-to-pay determination (Duenas)	Sandoval: Fines violate due process/equal protection and Duenas requires ability-to-pay inquiry.	People: Trial court stayed collection for one year and allowed motion on inability to pay; remand appropriate.	Affirmed in part and remanded: Judgment affirmed; remanded to allow Sandoval to file a motion in superior court to contest ability to pay (trial court had stayed payments and opened the issue).

Key Cases Cited

In re V.V., 51 Cal.4th 1020 (malice implied from deliberate ignition; arson general intent rule)
People v. Atkins, 25 Cal.4th 76 (arson general intent doctrine)
People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (no requirement of specific intent to burn particular property for arson)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)
People v. Mickel, 2 Cal.5th 181 (counsel not ineffective for failing to seek competency hearing absent substantial evidence)
People v. Medina, 51 Cal.3d 870 (competency hearing required when substantial evidence of incompetence introduced)
People v. Marshall, 15 Cal.4th 1 (second competency hearing requires substantial change/new evidence raising serious doubt)
People v. Coffman & Marlow, 34 Cal.4th 1 (flight instruction supported by some evidence)
People v. Silveria, 10 Cal.5th 195 (presumption jury follows instructions)
People v. Duenas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (addressing ability-to-pay inquiry for fines)