legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Lawrence CA4/1

mk's Membership Status

Registration Date: May 18, 2017
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09

Biographical Information

Contact Information

Submission History

Most recent listings:
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3

Find all listings submitted by mk
P. v. Lawrence CA4/1
By
05:04:2018

Filed 4/9/18 P. v. Lawrence CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PATRICK NICHOLAS LAWRENCE,

Defendant and Appellant.
D072601



(Super. Ct. No. SCD267103)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Amalia L. Meza, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Patrick Nicholas Lawrence of one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); one count of vandalism of real or personal property amounting to $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)); and one count of failure to appear after being released on bail (§ 1320.5). Lawrence was granted probation subject to 365 days in county jail.
Lawrence appeals challenging only the conviction for vandalism. As to that count, Lawrence contends the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. Based on our review of the record we will conclude there is ample substantial evidence to support the conviction and affirm the judgment.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In June 2015, Lawrence rented a single family home from the victim in this case. Several new appliances including a dishwasher, refrigerator, washer and a dryer were installed in the home in May 2015.
In August 2015, Lawrence quit paying rent. He was finally evicted from the property in March 2016.
After Lawrence was evicted from the property, the property manager visited the home to inspect it. The manager found the house was filthy, the carpet stained and covered with animal feces. Windows were broken and there were holes in the walls. Copper pipes and wiring had been removed, circuit breakers were missing, and roof tiles were damaged. The garage walls were covered with foil that was affixed with thousands of staples. The manager observed the new appliances were on the patio, outside of the house.
When the manager arrived the next day, the appliances were gone. Later that day, Lawrence told the property manager and a sheriff's deputy that the appliances were his and he had taken them to a storage unit. The appliances were never recovered. The victim spent over $100,000 to repair the damage done to the property during Lawrence's tenancy.
San Diego County Sheriff's deputies raided the property in January 2016. Lawrence, his fiancée and two infants were on the premises. Marijuana plants in pots were located outside and inside the garage. A total of 258 marijuana plants were found in the garage. There was no electricity, however there was an extension cord running from a small generator. Next to the generator was a fuse panel with pieces of stucco still adhering to it. There was a substantial amount of material in the garage for growing marijuana, including foil on the wall, and heavy high pressure sodium and fluorescent lights screwed into the structure of the garage, causing damage.
A deputy testified the small generator would have to be refueled every six to eight hours and the marijuana plants, which were not automatically watered, would have to be watered every few days.
Defense Evidence
Lawrence testified in his own behalf. He acknowledged renting the property and that he only paid two months of rent. Lawrence claimed he brought in two roommates to help with the rent, although no rent was paid. One roommate left in October and the other left at the end of 2015. He asked one of the roommates to leave because "the place was getting really bad and she wasn't helping the situation[.]"
Lawrence testified that in November and December, his fiancée was having a difficult pregnancy and he spent most of his time at the hospital. When he returned to the house in December, Lawrence observed the terrible condition of the house but did nothing to clean it up. He and his family stayed in a hotel because there was no water or electricity in the house. He did not tell the property manager about the condition of the property or that he was operating a marijuana grow operation on the property.
DISCUSSION
Lawrence contends there is not sufficient evidence of his involvement in the extensive damage done to the victim's property. He argues no witness saw him damage the property and there were two "subtenants" who could have been responsible. Although the jury found him guilty of vandalism of an amount over $400, Lawrence argues they found the allegation of damage over $10,000 not true. From that fact Lawrence posits the jurors must have believed the subtenants may have caused the damage.
As we will discuss we find there is substantial evidence to support a finding that Lawrence maliciously caused damage, of at least $400 to the property. We note at the outset of our discussion, the jurors were not required to believe, and obviously did not believe Lawrence's version of the events in this case.
A. Legal Principles
When we review a claim of insufficient evidence to support a verdict we apply the familiar substantial evidence standard of review. Under that standard we review the entire record, in the light most favorable to the jury's decision. We do not weigh the evidence and we do not make credibility decisions. We simply determine whether there is sufficient substantial evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could find each element of the offense to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, 550; People v. Medina (2009) 46 Cal.4th 913, 919.)
Section 594, subdivision (a) provides:
"(a) Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism: [¶] (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material. [¶] (2) Damages. [¶] (3) Destroys. [¶] Whenever a person violates this subdivision with respect to real property, vehicles, signs, fixtures, furnishings, or property belonging to any public entity, as defined by Section 811.2 of the Government Code, or the federal government, it shall be a permissive inference that the person neither owned the property nor had the permission of the owner to deface, damage, or destroy the property."

A person acts maliciously when the person intentionally does a wrongful act or where the person acts with the unlawful intent to annoy or injure someone else. (§ 7, subd. (4).) Direct proof of mental state is not required and it may be established by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Kwok (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245.) Vandalism is a general intent crime. (People v. Moore (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 889.)
B. Analysis
Lawrence relies primarily on the fact nobody testified they saw him destroy property. There was, of course, eye witness testimony to Lawrence's removal of all the new appliances. He does not challenge his conviction for grand theft. To a large extent, Lawrence relies on his testimony that there were others in the house for some of his occupancy of the house and that he was allegedly out of the house most of the time in November and December. He was in and around the house from June 2015 until he was evicted in March 2016. A jury might find his testimony less than credible given the horrendous damage to the house and the filthy, unlivable condition in which it was discovered by law enforcement in January and when Lawrence was finally removed from the premises. The jury could not decide if Lawrence committed all of the destruction, but found he was responsible for at least an amount over $400. There is substantial evidence to support the verdict.
Even if some damage to the place was possibly done by others, Lawrence was clearly responsible for the damage associated with the marijuana grow operation. There is no evidence of others setting up the operation. At the time of his arrest in January, there were 258 marijuana plants in and about the garage. There was damage to the garage from the placement of the foil and the heavy lights. Importantly, the electrical set up for the growing process included a circuit breaker which was attached to the garage. The circuit breaker for the house had been removed. The one attached to the garage still had pieces of stucco adhering to it.
When Lawrence was arrested in January the house contained a bed and a camping stove, rotting baby food, diapers, toys and other items indicating that Lawrence and his family were occupying the house, which was filthy and heavily damaged.
It is apparent from the record that Lawrence at least damaged the house and garage as part of his unlawful marijuana growing activities. His self-serving denials that he was around could be viewed with some skepticism by reasonable jurors. Lawrence removed all of the new appliances, was in the house at multiple times and apparently lived there for most of the time. Given the terrible damage and filthy conditions, which anyone would have noticed and his admitted marijuana growing activities, a reasonable jury could find Lawrence maliciously caused at least $400 in damage to the victim's property. We find Lawrence's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the vandalism count to be without merit.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:



NARES, J.



O'ROURKE, J.




Description A jury convicted Patrick Nicholas Lawrence of one count of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)); one count of vandalism of real or personal property amounting to $400 or more (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(1)); and one count of failure to appear after being released on bail (§ 1320.5). Lawrence was granted probation subject to 365 days in county jail.
Lawrence appeals challenging only the conviction for vandalism. As to that count, Lawrence contends the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. Based on our review of the record we will conclude there is ample substantial evidence to support the conviction and affirm the judgment.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.
Views 13 views. Averaging 13 views per day.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale