THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAYMOND HAROS, Defendant and Appellant.
D084811
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
September 2, 2025
John M. Monterosso, Judge
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS. (Super. Ct. No. SWF2400113). APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Raymond Haros appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to arson in violation of
Appellate counsel filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal but inviting this court to review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We offered Haros the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not done so. Having independently reviewed the entire record for error as required by Wende and Anders, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
At the preliminary hearing, a Riverside County fire captain testified she responded one evening to a report of a fire within a vacant business suite in a commercial strip mall. A witness working in the bakery next door reported he had heard a loud banging noise coming from the vacant suite. He saw smoke and an individual later identified as Haros inside the suite. An arson investigator determined the fire had been intentionally set in wooden beams supporting a raised alcove within the vacant suite. Police found a plastic lighter with remnants of burnt plastic in Haros’s pocket.
The People filed a complaint charging Haros with arson of a structure in violation of
Haros pleaded guilty to arson in violation of
DISCUSSION
Appellate counsel filed a Wende brief asking the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders, counsel identified as a possible issue in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal whether appellant should have been permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.
Haros did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. Without a certificate of probable cause, he cannot contest the validity of his plea. (
We have independently reviewed the record and have considered the possible issue identified by Haros’s counsel. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738.) In particular, we considered whether the trial court’s statements at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing as to the sufficiency of evidence of malicious intent cast doubt on Haros’s subsequent plea to a felony charge that includes such intent. Although a more clear and direct inquiry by the trial court about the factual basis for a guilty plea would have been helpful to avoid any later questions, we conclude no reasonably arguable issues support a reversal.
Competent counsel has represented Haros in this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.
KELETY, J.
WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.