Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
David Saucedo was convicted of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and misdemeanor battery on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)) after an August 2024 argument with his girlfriend, Doe, during which he smashed her iPhone 14, choked her, and pushed her. The information also alleged two aggravating factors—that he had served a prior prison term and that his prior convictions and sustained juvenile petitions were numerous and increasing in seriousness—and four prior serious and violent felony convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(2); 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)).
At trial, Doe testified that the shattered, bent phone would cost between $1,200 and $1,400 to replace; she had insurance and paid only $249 out of pocket. Riverside Police Officer Michael Hinman independently found an approximate T-Mobile value of $730, and Saucedo admitted in a recorded interview that he broke the phone. The jury convicted him of both counts. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court—not the jury—found the four strike priors and both aggravating factors true, then imposed the upper term of three years on the vandalism count, doubled for the strikes.
On appeal, Saucedo argued that insufficient evidence supported the felony vandalism conviction and that the upper term rested on aggravating factors not found true by a jury as amended section 1170(b) requires. The People conceded that remand for resentencing was necessary.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the felony vandalism conviction. Section 594 does not prescribe a method for proving the amount of damage, and courts may rely on the cost of repairing or replacing the property. Doe's testimony that a replacement iPhone 14 cost $1,200 to $1,400, corroborated by the officer's $730 estimate, was substantial evidence that the damage exceeded $400. The court distinguished In re Kyle T., which involved graffiti-removal estimates not tied to the defendant's specific acts, and held that Saucedo was not entitled to a windfall because Doe had insurance; the total replacement cost, not her out-of-pocket payment, controlled.
The court reversed the sentence. Under People v. Wiley (2025) and amended section 1170(b), aggravating factors supporting an upper term must be found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury unless stipulated to or waived. The record showed Saucedo never waived a jury on the aggravating factors; the jury was excused after the verdict and the court found the factors true. The People conceded the error was not harmless, and the court agreed—the jury could have rejected the numerous-and-increasing-seriousness factor based on the totality of his record, including minor Vehicle Code violations and a pending case.
The judgment of conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was reversed and vacated so the People could retry the aggravating factors and the trial court could resentence in accordance with amended section 1170(b).
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the felony vandalism conviction where the victim testified the replacement cost of her iPhone 14 was $1,200 to $1,400, well over the $400 felony threshold.
- Replacement cost is a valid measure of damage under section 594, and a victim's insurance coverage does not reduce the value of the damage for felony-threshold purposes.
- Under amended section 1170(b) and People v. Wiley, aggravating factors justifying an upper-term sentence must be found true by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt unless the defendant stipulates or waives a jury.
- The trial court's reliance on court-found aggravating factors was reversible error, not harmless, because the jury could have found the factors untrue based on the totality of the defendant's conduct.
- The case was remanded for the People to retry the aggravating factors and for resentencing in compliance with amended section 1170(b).
Why It Matters
The decision applies People v. Wiley's jury-trial requirement to an upper-term sentencing, confirming that court-found aggravating factors cannot support a sentence above the middle term under amended section 1170(b) absent stipulation or waiver. It also reaffirms that replacement cost proves damage value in vandalism prosecutions and that a victim's insurance does not create a windfall for the defendant.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores that aggravating factors must be submitted to a jury—or a valid waiver obtained—before an upper term is imposed; failure to do so requires reversal and remand for resentencing.