People v. Doop CA2/6

Filed 8/5/14 P. v. Doop CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B252089 (Super. Ct. No. BA411646) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

CHRISTOPHER DOOP,

Defendant and Appellant.

An amended information charged Christopher Doop with one count of felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a))1 and two counts of criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). The information further alleged that Doop was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance at the time of the offenses (§ 12022.1) and had suffered five prior convictions resulting in prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)-(i), 1170.12).2 Following a jury trial, Doop was convicted of the felony vandalism count and acquitted of the criminal threats counts. He admitted the prior conviction allegations.

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

2 The amended information on which Doop was arraigned alleged the two strikes only as to the criminal threats counts. Following Doop's acquittal of those counts, the prosecution successfully moved the court to correct the information so that the two strike allegations applied to the felony vandalism count as well.

The trial court sentenced Doop to the high term of three years in state prison, run concurrently, with 237 days of presentence custody credit. The court dismissed the on-bail allegation (§ 1385, subd. (a)), struck the two strikes (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497), and struck additional punishment for the other prior convictions (§ 1385, subd. (c)). The court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), $540 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $280 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a suspended $280 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45). Doop and James McLean, a 76-year-old research curator at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, were friends for about 25 years. They met when Doop was 19 or 20 years old. Over the years, Doop lived with McLean from time to time in McLean's home in the Hollywood Hills. Doop married Patricia Gault, and the two of them moved in with McLean in May 2012. About three years into the marriage, Doop and Gault's relationship soured, and Doop moved out in late April or early May 2014. Gault continued to live with McLean in his house. During the next two weeks, Doop called McLean and visited him at his office two or three times. Doop demanded that McLean kick Gault out of the house and threatened to burn down her pickup truck. On May 19, 2013, Doop slashed the tires of Gault's truck. He told both the police and McLean that he did that because she had put sugar in the gas tank of his Mercedes. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting our independent review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. On May 6, 2014, we notified Doop that he had 30 days in which to advise us of any claims he wished us to consider. He submitted a two-page letter brief. Doop contends that he could not have been found guilty of vandalizing Gault's truck because he purchased it for her. To the contrary, California courts have repeatedly held that "a spouse can be guilty of vandalizing community property."3