People v. Vardehanhar CA6

Filed 11/16/15 P. v. Vardehanhar CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H041375 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1241739)

v.

EDWIN VARDEHANHAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Defendant Edwin Vardehanhar was convicted after jury trial of vandalism, and the jury found true the allegation that the amount of damage was more than $400. (Pen. Code, § 594.)1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation with various terms and conditions, including that he stay away from the victim and a witness who testified at defendant’s trial. On appeal, defendant contends that the probation condition is unconstitutionally vague because it does not contain a knowledge requirement. For reasons that we will explain, we will modify the probation condition to include a knowledge element.

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

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Information and Jury Trial In August 2013, defendant was charged by information with felony vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a) & (b)(1)). The evidence at the jury trial included the following. The victim, Randa V.,2 and defendant lived at the same apartment complex and had socialized in a group setting on at least one occasion. The victim testified that defendant liked one of her friends and repeatedly asked about the friend, but she told him that the friend was not interested in him. The victim testified that she received a few calls shortly before midnight on February 27, 2012. She answered the last one, and the caller said, “This is Edwin, your neighbor.” The caller said “very bad words” to her, such as “You’re a stupid bitch, fuck you.” The next morning the victim went to her car which had been parked in the apartment garage overnight. She discovered that all four tires were flat and that there were scratches all over the car. On the trunk area in particular there were scratches that appeared to state, “take care with your ass.” Another tenant, Mariana Sanchez, testified that she had been in the garage about midnight or between 12:00 and 1:00 a.m. Sanchez saw a person walk around a car and leave a scratch mark. She later reported the incident to the police. At trial, Sanchez identified defendant as the person she had seen scratching the car. The victim’s insurance company inspected the vehicle and determined that the total cost of repairs would be more than $3,800. The victim ultimately received $3,400 from the insurance company.