Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Magana CA4/3

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: G065681

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/18/26 P. v. Magana CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G065681

v. (Super. Ct. No. 25HF0120)

SERGIO CERVANTES MAGANA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Kevin Haskins, Judge. Affirmed.
Annie F. Fraser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

---

The People charged defendant Sergio Cervantes Magana with
one count of arson. A jury found Magana guilty of unlawful burning, which is
a lesser included offense. The trial court placed Magana on formal probation
for two years. Magana filed a notice of appeal.
Magana’s counsel filed an opening brief identifying no arguable
issues on appeal. (See Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders);
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Magana has not filed a
supplemental brief on his own behalf. After independently reviewing the
record, we affirm the judgment.

I.
1
BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 11, 2025, at about 10:00 p.m., neighbors in a Laguna
Hills neighborhood heard a man screaming on the hillside behind them. One
of the neighbors called 9-1-1 after seeing an apparent fire. A deputy sheriff
arrived and put out the majority of the fire with a fire extinguisher. Another
deputy saw Magana and ordered him to stay on the ground.
Magana told the deputies that someone was chasing him and he
had fallen from a tree. Magana said that he hurt his ankle. Magana said that
he did not have a cell phone and he lit the fire in order to get someone’s
attention. Magana said, “‘I just didn’t know what else to do, man.’” Magana
said that he tried to keep the fire somewhat contained. Magana had three
BIC lighters in his possession.

1
In Wende appeals, the California Supreme Court has directed
appellate courts to outline “a brief description of the facts and procedural
history of the case, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, and the
punishment imposed.” (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.)

2
Procedural History
The People filed an information charging Magana with one count
of arson. At a jury trial, a fire investigator testified that he had responded to
the call of a fire in Laguna Hills at about 11:16 p.m. The investigator opined
that there had been a minimum of three spots where the fire was started, and
that the fire was intentionally set. Magana testified that he had been hurt, he
could not move, and he had started the fire to get some assistance. Magana
had previously pleaded guilty to two theft related felonies.
The trial court instructed the jury on the crime of arson (a willful
and malicious burning), and the lesser included crime of unlawfully causing a
fire (a reckless burning of forest land). (Pen. Code, §§ 451, subd. (c), 452,
subd. (c).) The jury found Magana not guilty of the greater offense, but guilty
of the lesser included offense. The trial court granted Magana two years of
formal probation with 364 days in custody, along with fines and fees.

II.
DISCUSSION
When a defendant’s appellate counsel identifies no arguable
issues on appeal, an appellate court must independently review the record for
arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
Generally, “an arguable issue on appeal consists of two elements.
First, the issue must be one which, in counsel’s professional opinion, is
meritorious. That is not to say that the contention must necessarily achieve
success. Rather, it must have a reasonable potential for success. Second, if
successful, the issue must be such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant,
the result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment.” (People
v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

3
In a “Wende brief,” appellate counsel may identify potential
issues that were considered, but not raised on appeal. (See People v. Kent
(2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 293, 296 [the listing of potential issues (so-called
Anders issues) is welcomed and encouraged]; but see People v. Garcia (2018)
24 Cal.App.5th 314, 325 [the listing of Anders issues “is not necessarily
helpful to the reviewing court or to an appellant”].)
Here, counsel directed this court’s attention to three potential
issues that had been considered, but were not raised on appeal: (1) whether
Magana’s rights to a fair trial were violated by transporting him to the
courtroom in handcuffs and waist chains; (2) whether the prosecutor
committed misconduct by eliciting testimony about a red flag warning; and
(3) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that Magana
had previously been in trouble before.
This court has reviewed the record on appeal, and we find no
arguable issues, including the three potential issues identified by counsel.
(See People v. Johnson, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at p. 109 [“the issue must be
such that, if resolved favorably to the appellant, the result will either be a
reversal or a modification of the judgment”].)

4
III.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

MOORE, J.

WE CONCUR:

MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.

DELANEY, J.

5