People v. Hurth CA1/1

Filed 1/30/14 P. v. Hurth CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A135072

v. (Solano County MAURICE PIERRE HURTH, Super. Ct. No. FCR288339) Defendant and Appellant.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137357 v. MAURICE PIERRE HURTH, (Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. FCR288339) Defendant and Appellant.

INTRODUCTION These consolidated appeals arise from defendant Maurice P. Hurth’s conviction of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)).1 In appeal No. A135072, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying a mistrial after the victim, Hanif Adisa, in violation of an in limine ruling, briefly alluded in his testimony to defendant’s alleged commission of an unrelated “home invasion.” In appeal No. A137357, Hurth contends the trial court abused its discretion in the amount of restitution ordered following revocation of his probation and sentencing. We conclude there was no abuse of discretion and affirm defendant’s conviction and the restitution order.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

BACKGROUND In November 2010, Hanif Adisa and Tamica Darnes dated for three weeks. They remained in contact. Within several months, defendant had developed a relationship with Darnes and in February 2011, he began harassing Adisa, warning him to “leave my bitch alone.” On April 22, 2011, Darnes called Adisa and asked him to drive to her house. Adisa assumed Darnes wanted him to take her someplace, as she had asked for rides before. When Adisa arrived, he pulled into the driveway and called Darnes on her cell phone to let her know he was outside. Instead of Darnes, defendant walked out and approached the car. Adisa rolled down his window, and defendant asked Adisa who he was there to see, to which Adisa did not reply. Darnes then opened the front door of the house, and defendant walked up to speak with her. Adisa could not hear their conversation, and Darnes shortly told Adisa to leave. When Adisa saw defendant pick up a large rock, approximately six to eight inches in diameter, he began backing his car out of the driveway. Defendant threw the rock, which struck the rear window of Adisa’s car, shattering it and denting the window frame. Adisa parked the car, stepped out of it, and shut the door. When he shut the door, the rear window broke completely. In November, Adisa testified at a preliminary hearing against defendant and referred to a “home invasion” robbery defendant had committed. Thereafter, defendant and Darnes called Adisa. Defendant said, “hey, nigga, I got some news for you.” Darnes, in turn, threatened, “if [he] continued to prosecute [defendant] then [Adisa’s] place would be shot up.” Adisa told Darnes he was going to get a restraining order against her, and that he already had one against defendant. Adisa then told the police about the phone call. The Solano County District Attorney then filed an information charging defendant with one count of vandalism over $400 and one count of dissuading a witness from prosecuting a crime. Before trial, defendant made an in limine motion “to prohibit the prosecutor and his witnesses from offering testimony that Mr. Hurth has been to prison or is or has been