People v. Sanchez CA4/1

Filed 10/13/25 P. v. Sanchez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086173

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2302325)

GILBERT DAVID SANCHEZ Jr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Charles G. Rogers and F. Paul Dickerson III, Judges. Affirmed. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Maxine Hart, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION A jury convicted Gilbert David Sanchez, Jr. of one count of felony

vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a); count 5),1 acquitted him of one count of making a criminal threat (§ 422; count 3) and one count of elder abuse under circumstances likely to produce great bodily injury or death (§ 368, subd. (b)(1); count 4), and failed to reach a verdict on two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); counts 1 & 2). After a retrial on counts 1 and 2, a second jury convicted Sanchez on the assault with a firearm charges and returned true findings on firearm enhancements attached to both counts (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)). Sanchez was sentenced to an aggregate term of 10 years in state prison. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, Sanchez contends we must reduce his felony vandalism conviction to a misdemeanor because there was insufficient evidence that the property damage he caused amounted to $400 or more—the minimum threshold needed to support a felony vandalism conviction. (§ 594, subd. (b)(1).) We reject this argument and affirm the judgment. II BACKGROUND Sanchez is the grandson of the victim, Raul M. Sanchez and multiple other family members lived in the home of Raul and his wife. Sanchez and Raul had a contentious relationship at times. On one occasion, the men argued with one another about money, and Sanchez armed himself with a firearm, pointed it at Raul, and threatened him. On another occasion,