Award Recipient
Top 100 Trial Attorneys in the United States
Contact Us for a Free Consultation
San Gabriel, Vandalism, Client Age 63, Judicial Diversion
In June of 2023, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department responded to a home in San Gabriel regarding a reported petty theft. Once the officer arrived at the location, it was clarified that the matter was instead a vandalism matter.
The victim told the deputy that our client had climbed a ladder and used a garden hoe to knock a surveillance camera off the peak of a roof top on the victim’s home. The camera was a “Ring” surveillance camera, but it was not being used to observe the front door area of the victim’s house. It was instead aimed at observing the backyard of our client’s home. The deputy noted that the camera appeared wet, like it had been immersed in water. It was found on the ground below where it was mounted.
The deputy then spoke with our client and the victim together. Our client offered to buy a replacement camera for the victim. The victim stated the camera was purchased for about $200, but refused to agree to such a payment from our client.
The sheriff’s deputy then cited our client for vandalism and had him sign a promise to appear in the Alhambra Superior Court in about three months.
About a week later, the client called Greg Hill & Associates and described the events leading to his citation. There had been years of conflict between the two neighbors, highlighted by a recent three week period when the neighbors took a vacation back to Syria, where they were from, and left their two dogs in their backyard. The dogs barked incessantly for the three weeks, except when a friend delivered food to them once a day at about 10:00 p.m. Years earlier, the neighbors had obtained a civil restraining order against our client, but it had expired after three years.
The client was extremely concerned about what his privacy rights were and whether the neighbors had violated his privacy rights by aiming the Ring security camera into our client’s backyard. Greg responded that such a camera probably did violate his right to privacy, but trespassing onto the neighbor’s property and vandalizing the camera was not excused by such a violation. The client should have simply asked the San Gabriel police department for help in having the camera relocated or turned away.
The client, who had no prior criminal history, asked next if he would go to jail for this crime. Greg answered it would be highly unlikely that he would serve any time in jail. Greg then explained how judicial diversion would be requested and for the client and what the terms would most likely be.
Greg estimated that the client would be placed on six months of judicial diversion with an obligation to perform a small amount of community service (Greg estimated 15 to 30 hours), to attend a small number of anger management classes (Greg estimated 13, or three months of once weekly meetings), payment of restitution to the neighbor for the replacement cost of the Ring camera and a criminal protective order ordering our client to have no contact with the neighbors during the period of judicial diversion.
About three weeks later, the criminal complaint against our client for violation of Penal Code § 594(a), misdemeanor vandalism, was filed.
Greg appeared under Penal Code § 977(a) in the Alhambra Courthouse without the client present. Greg told the judge that he would be seeking judicial diversion for the client and the judge advised Greg that she required a written motion requesting this. The arraignment was then continued for about five weeks to be not only the arraignment, but a hearing on the motion for judicial diversion, too. The judge stated that our client had to be present, as well, to be served with a criminal protective order, regardless of whether judicial diversion was granted.
Greg then prepared, filed and served the motion for imposition of judicial diversion, setting it for the next hearing date.
The date for the hearing arrived and Greg appeared with the client. The client’s neighbors also appeared with separate counsel to oppose judicial diversion, oddly arguing that our client should not be granted judicial diversion on the vandalism charge because our client often called the neighbor’s son derogatory names. The judge politely listened to this strange argument.
The District Attorney also opposed judicial diversion, but stated her reason as “only because the victim opposes judicial diversion.”
The judge granted judicial diversion, but imposed a two-year term with an obligation that our client attend 26 anger management classes, perform 60 hours of community service, pay restitution for the price of the Ring camera ($253.66) and stay at least 4 yards away from his neighbors. The terms were higher than Greg anticipated, but this was no doubt due to the unexpected appearance of the neighbors at the hearing and their attorney’s efforts, although certainly weak, to oppose judicial diversion.
The victim told the deputy that our client had climbed a ladder and used a garden hoe to knock a surveillance camera off the peak of a roof top on the victim’s home. The camera was a “Ring” surveillance camera, but it was not being used to observe the front door area of the victim’s house. It was instead aimed at observing the backyard of our client’s home. The deputy noted that the camera appeared wet, like it had been immersed in water. It was found on the ground below where it was mounted.
The deputy then spoke with our client and the victim together. Our client offered to buy a replacement camera for the victim. The victim stated the camera was purchased for about $200, but refused to agree to such a payment from our client.
The sheriff’s deputy then cited our client for vandalism and had him sign a promise to appear in the Alhambra Superior Court in about three months.
About a week later, the client called Greg Hill & Associates and described the events leading to his citation. There had been years of conflict between the two neighbors, highlighted by a recent three week period when the neighbors took a vacation back to Syria, where they were from, and left their two dogs in their backyard. The dogs barked incessantly for the three weeks, except when a friend delivered food to them once a day at about 10:00 p.m. Years earlier, the neighbors had obtained a civil restraining order against our client, but it had expired after three years.
The client was extremely concerned about what his privacy rights were and whether the neighbors had violated his privacy rights by aiming the Ring security camera into our client’s backyard. Greg responded that such a camera probably did violate his right to privacy, but trespassing onto the neighbor’s property and vandalizing the camera was not excused by such a violation. The client should have simply asked the San Gabriel police department for help in having the camera relocated or turned away.
The client, who had no prior criminal history, asked next if he would go to jail for this crime. Greg answered it would be highly unlikely that he would serve any time in jail. Greg then explained how judicial diversion would be requested and for the client and what the terms would most likely be.
Greg estimated that the client would be placed on six months of judicial diversion with an obligation to perform a small amount of community service (Greg estimated 15 to 30 hours), to attend a small number of anger management classes (Greg estimated 13, or three months of once weekly meetings), payment of restitution to the neighbor for the replacement cost of the Ring camera and a criminal protective order ordering our client to have no contact with the neighbors during the period of judicial diversion.
About three weeks later, the criminal complaint against our client for violation of Penal Code § 594(a), misdemeanor vandalism, was filed.
Greg appeared under Penal Code § 977(a) in the Alhambra Courthouse without the client present. Greg told the judge that he would be seeking judicial diversion for the client and the judge advised Greg that she required a written motion requesting this. The arraignment was then continued for about five weeks to be not only the arraignment, but a hearing on the motion for judicial diversion, too. The judge stated that our client had to be present, as well, to be served with a criminal protective order, regardless of whether judicial diversion was granted.
Greg then prepared, filed and served the motion for imposition of judicial diversion, setting it for the next hearing date.
The date for the hearing arrived and Greg appeared with the client. The client’s neighbors also appeared with separate counsel to oppose judicial diversion, oddly arguing that our client should not be granted judicial diversion on the vandalism charge because our client often called the neighbor’s son derogatory names. The judge politely listened to this strange argument.
The District Attorney also opposed judicial diversion, but stated her reason as “only because the victim opposes judicial diversion.”
The judge granted judicial diversion, but imposed a two-year term with an obligation that our client attend 26 anger management classes, perform 60 hours of community service, pay restitution for the price of the Ring camera ($253.66) and stay at least 4 yards away from his neighbors. The terms were higher than Greg anticipated, but this was no doubt due to the unexpected appearance of the neighbors at the hearing and their attorney’s efforts, although certainly weak, to oppose judicial diversion.
The client was happy to know his case would be dismissed if he complied with the terms of judicial diversion.
