Lancaster, 6 Counts Felony Graffiti, Plea to 1 Misdemeanor

Our client, age 30 and with zero criminal history, was arrested after Lancaster police tied him to seventeen areas of graffiti in and about the city.  They had investigated him for months and finally located him.  They served a search warrant on his home and found a box with paint and stencils that matched those used in our client’s distinctive graffiti.
Synopsis:  Lancaster client faces six counts of felony vandalism (Penal Code § 594(a)) for graffiti, case resolved for one misdemeanor count with community service and restitution.
Our client was quite cooperative with police, who regarded our client with curiosity.  In his graffiti, our client was not signing his name or initials or anything related to any gang.  Instead, his graffiti to city-owned walls and electric control boxes consisted of a single motivational message, meant to inspire other taggers to have ambitious goals and leave a life of tagging.  Our client’s goals, in other words, were to prevent crime and urge youths to a life of achievements for college and a good job.

image description
Our client called Greg Hill & Associates because he went to his arraignment and found the District Attorney had filed a complaint alleging six counts of felony vandalism (Penal Code § 594(a)), but had threatened to add eleven more counts if he did not accept the first plea bargain. This deal was three years in state prison.  The client could not accept this.

Greg Hill & Associates was retained and immediately noticed that the case bore a striking similarity to a recent juvenile case, Luis M. v. The Los Angeles Superior Court (2012 DJDAR 15097) (cite as Luis M. v. Superior Court (2012) 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 795, 210 Cal.App.4th 982), involving graffiti in Lancaster, no less.  In that case, the Lancaster District Attorney had charged the youth with felony vandalism, basing the charge on the average cost ($432) for the City of Lancaster to investigate, process and finally repair the damage.  The appeals court ruled that the city could only factor in the cost to repair and its cost must be based on the actual cost of the specific repair, not an average cost.

In our client’s case, the City of Lancaster alleged that the cost to repair the six instances of vandalism was $432 each.  The similarity was more than coincidence.  The difference between felony vandalism and misdemeanor vandalism is $400.  If the repair cost is less than $400, it is misdemeanor vandalism.  

Greg Hill brought this to the District Attorney’s attention and even showed the District Attorney the other opinion.  Greg asked the District Attorney for repair estimates for each of the six instances of vandalism involving our client, some of which were very minor and surely involved repair costs of far less than an average patch of graffiti.

Greg also prepared and filed a Motion to Reclassify the case as a misdemeanor on all counts.

The District Attorney fumbled around with the case for two more appearances, explaining that he could not get the police to provide the damage estimates.  Finally, he caved in and reduced one count of the complaint to misdemeanor vandalism and dismissed the other five counts. 

He then offered our client a plea bargain wherein he would plead to one count of misdemeanor vandalism in exchange for three years of informal probation, 30 days of graffiti removal and restitution of $4,000.  The $4,000 amount was negotiated down from $7,338, which was the “estimated” cost to repair based on Lancaster’s average cost to repair.  Our client also has the option to end probation in one year and expunge conviction.

The client was very happy with the resolution, as he could keep his job and completely avoided prison. 

For more information about graffiti and vandalism, click on the following articles:
  1. In Juvenile Vandalism Case Involving Graffiti, Restitution Cannot Include Investigation Costs
  2. What Is Vandalism and Graffiti (Penal Code § 594)?
  3. Felony Vandalism Charges Proper When Prosecutor Adds Damages Up from Multiple Victims
 Contact us.

Client Reviews
Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well. S.A., Torrance
Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him. S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards. L.H., Torrance
Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help. V.L., Carson
Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot. C.R., Pomona