Filed 4/14/17 P. v. Crooks 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

TODD CHARLES CROOKS,

Defendant and Appellant.
D069988



(Super. Ct. No. SCD260953)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed.
Jared G. Coleman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, July L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Todd Crooks was charged with grand theft of personal property in excess of $950 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd.(a) (count 1)) and vandalism over $400 (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1) (count 2)). Each count was charged as a felony. Following a bench trial, the court found defendant not guilty of count 1 and guilty of count 2.
At the sentencing hearing, defendant's counsel requested the court sentence the vandalism conviction as a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b). The court denied the motion and suspended the imposition of sentence. The court ordered defendant to serve three years of formal probation and 365 days in local custody.
On appeal, defendant contends the court erred when it did not reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early part of 2012, defendant and his former wife lived at the Hillcrest Inn in San Diego. Sometime in 2014, defendant asked the manager for permission to replace the flooring in his unit and the manager agreed. Defendant never completed the renovation, nor was he given permission to perform any other renovations.
In December 2014, defendant received an eviction notice for failing to pay rent. After receiving the notice, defendant threatened the manager, stating " 'Anyone who comes to my door will be shot in the face.' " A few days before the scheduled eviction in February 2015, defendant, who was dressed in all black, went to the property manager's home late at night and confronted him. Worried because defendant was known for having "really bad" confrontations at the Hillcrest Inn, the property manager told defendant he intended to call the police. Defendant left. The property manager was afraid defendant was hiding a weapon.
Two days after this incident, the manager heard loud banging coming from defendant's unit and upon investigating the source of the noise, found the electronic lock system and the wood surrounding it had been destroyed. Upon reviewing surveillance footage, the manager saw defendant carrying some sort of tool that could be used as a weapon to his property moments before the lock was destroyed. The next day, the day of the scheduled lock-out, the manager went into defendant's unit where he saw the damaged door and noted almost everything inside the apartment had been removed without permission. The surveillance tape showed defendant entering and leaving the unit carrying a crowbar and an ax.
In defense, defendant admitted he gained entry into the unit using a crowbar and ax, but stated he believed he had the legal right to enter the property before the actual eviction date. He also stated he believed he had permission to remove the cabinets, flooring, and sink and to replace them with his own items but he was evicted before he could accomplish this.
At the sentencing hearing, defendant argued the felony vandalism conviction should be reduced to a misdemeanor because the mitigating sentencing factors, including defendant's mental health issues, outweighed the aggravating considerations. The prosecution urged the court to consider all of the circumstances surrounding the crime and maintained defendant's request should be rejected.
The court acknowledged that standing alone, defendant's conduct in damaging the door and lock was a "reducible" offense, but the court was concerned about defendant's other conduct and history. After considering "everything submitted by the parties," including the probation report, a mental health assessment, and relevant sentencing factors, the court denied the motion.
The court indicated it considered defendant dangerous, with a pattern of menacing behavior. The court noted that at trial there was evidence defendant had threatened the manager and confronted the property manager at his home. And, as reported in the probation report, in three previous incidents defendant had assaulted other individuals, pepper spraying two of them. The court expressed concern about defendant engaging in similar conduct in the future, and noted defendant purposefully creates conflict in order to have an opportunity to respond.
DISCUSSION
California Rules of Court, rule 4.410 provides:
"(a) General objectives of sentencing include: [¶] (1) Protecting society; [¶] (2) Punishing the defendant; [¶] (3) Encouraging the defendant to lead a law-abiding life in the future and deterring him or her from future offenses; [¶] (4) Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its consequences; [¶] (5) Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating him or her for the period of incarceration; [¶] (6) Securing restitution for the victims of crime; [¶] (7) Achieving uniformity in sentencing; [and] [¶] (8) Increasing public safety by reducing recidivism through community-based corrections programs and evidence-based practices.

"(b) Because in some instances these objectives may suggest inconsistent dispositions, the sentencing judge must consider which objectives are of primary importance in the particular case. The sentencing judge should be guided by statutory statements of policy, the criteria in these rules, and the facts and circumstances of the case."

When a crime is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in the county jail, the court, in its discretion, may reduce the crime to a misdemeanor under section 17, subdivision (b). Even when a so-called "wobbler," such as vandalism, is charged as a felony, the court has authority to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. (People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 789.) Because "[t]he conduct underlying these offenses can vary widely in its level of seriousness," the Legislature has "empowered the courts to decide, in each individual case, whether the crime should be classified as a felony or a misdemeanor." (People v. Tran (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 877, 885.)
In making this decision, the court "considers the facts surrounding the offense and the characteristics of the offender." (People v. Tran, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 885; People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 978.) "The reduction of a wobbler to a misdemeanor is not based on the notion that a wobbler offense is 'conceptually a misdemeanor.' [Citation.] Rather, it is 'intended to extend misdemeanant treatment to a potential felon' and 'extend more lenient treatment to an offender.' " (Tran, at p. 886.) A trial court's sentencing decision granting or denying a motion to reduce a felony to a misdemeanor is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (See Alvarez, at p. 977.)
Here there was no abuse of discretion. The court fully acknowledged that because the damage to the door was only slightly above the threshold required for a felony vandalism conviction, reduction to a misdemeanor ordinarily would be appropriate. But after considering all of the circumstances surrounding the crime and reviewing sentencing statements, mitigating and aggravating factors, and a mental health assessment, the court concluded treating this conviction as a misdemeanor was not warranted.
Defendant was highly aggressive and displayed threatening behavior in the days leading up to his eviction. He also had a history of angry encounters with others at the Hillcrest Inn, and was involved in serious confrontational behavior in three prior incidents. The court considered defendant to be dangerous, with a propensity for creating unnecessary confrontations. Contrary to defendant's argument, the court's decision was based on proper sentencing objectives and was fully supported by the evidence presented at trial and at the sentencing hearing.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed.


HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:




HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.




AARON, J.