People v. Hartsfield CA4/1

Filed 9/24/25 P. v. Hartsfield CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084114

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD296701)

AVONTE AHIKIM HARTSFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In October 2021, Avonte Ahikim Hartsfield burned down his own food truck and falsely reported that he was the victim of arson.

Hartsfield set up an online crowdfunding campaign through GoFundMe and solicited donations to rebuild his business, claiming he had been victimized by “a shocking series of hate crimes” and fire. He raised $102,276 from more than 2,000 donors. In November 2022, the People charged Hartsfield with insurance fraud, arson, and grand theft by false pretenses. After the charges were filed, GoFundMe withdrew its support out of concern that Hartsfield had been lying. GoFundMe paid out more than $26,678 in refunds to donors. At trial, the People provided no direct evidence or testimony to show that any of the donors relied on Hartsfield’s false pretense of being an arson victim when deciding to contribute. The jury found Hartsfield guilty of all counts. On appeal, Hartsfield contends the People failed to prove donors materially relied on the false representation that he was a victim of arson. He argues the conviction for grand theft by false pretense should not stand. We conclude a jury could reasonably infer the donors gave money to Hartsfield because they relied on his false claim of being an arson victim. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2021, Hartsfield burned down his rented food truck. Then he reported to police that he had found his truck burned, and he did not know how it had happened. He also advised that his food truck and his office in a business building (near where he kept the truck parked) had been vandalized and burglarized over the previous two days. He claimed an intruder had left a noose in the office. The day after he made his report to police, Hartsfield created a fundraising campaign called “Rebuilding After a Series of Hate Crimes” on