Sufficiency of the evidence; Mens rea for first-degree arson

The court held that the evidence from the two officers “was more than sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for first-degree arson.” Also, defendant’s sentence to 18 to 30 years was proportionate. Finally, he had “not satisfied the test for ineffective assistance of counsel.” Defendant, who was incarcerated, contended “that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence that [he] acted ‘willfully or maliciously’ in burning his cell because [he] was, instead, trying to commit suicide.” The record did not support his “argument, as the prosecution presented ample evidence in support of the requisite state of mind.” Sergeant K “testified that he saw a large fire on defendant’s bed, while defendant was the only person in the cell.” He described “the scene as follows: [T]here was like I said a large fire on the bed and [defendant] was feeding paper into it and he’d also stuffed paper into his socks and had lit all that paper on fire, so he had like a ring of fire around both ankles.” K did “not see defendant with flames on his body aside from the fires burning in his socks.” Sergeant V “acknowledged that defendant had been placed under observation in the past for exhibiting suicidal behaviors. [V] said that it was common for prisoners to engage in attention-seeking behaviors, and he characterized defendant’s self-injurious behavior ‘to be more [in] the line of attention seeking.’” V noted that the security-camera footage “video showed defendant ‘starting a fire in his cell’ and that it ‘look[ed] like he was throwing something . . . to make [the] fire spread further.’” Finally, it concluded that he had “not overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence was proportional. Several people were injured from smoke inhalation as a result of the fire, including one person who required treatment at a hospital. Defendant put many others in danger as a result of the arson.” In addition, he “caused a considerable amount of damage to prison property.” As for his “history, he had a prior felony conviction, five prior misdemeanor convictions, and a juvenile record. He was serving a sentence for home invasion at the time of the arson. And he had a lengthy prison-misconduct record that included numerous assaultive incidents.” Affirmed.