People v. Ruiz CA4/3
Filed 9/12/16 P. v. Ruiz CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G052055
v. (Super. Ct. No. 14HF2170)
ABRAHAM RUIZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Kimberly A. Donohue, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Abraham Ruiz of felony vandalism and attempted petty theft. On appeal, Ruiz argues insufficient evidence supports his felony vandalism conviction and he was only guilty of misdemeanor vandalism. We disagree and affirm the judgment. FACTS One evening, Ruiz vandalized and attempted to steal copper piping from a strip mall’s roof. A shop owner heard footsteps on the roof and called the police. Police found Ruiz on the roof, wearing a backpack that contained several construction tools, including a pipe cutter and saw. Ruiz did not possess any copper piping. After helping detain Ruiz, Deputy Ryan Hoopii took pictures of the damage to several air conditioning units on the rooftop. About one week later, a service technician from HVAC Mechanical, a commercial air conditioning company, reviewed the total damage. The service technician relayed the repair information, such as the size and lengths of the copper needed, to his service manager, Nick Hooper. Hooper’s duties included managing the service department, dispatching calls, and writing repair quotes. Hooper said he used information from “one of [the copper pipe] distributors” to determine what “rate copper was going for during that week” to establish the cost to replace the copper needed for repairing the damaged air conditioning units. The price quote included the cost to replace P-traps and copper drain pipes for five air conditioning units, requiring the purchase and installation of 140 feet of copper. The material cost for 140 feet of copper piping was $769 (approximately $5.49 per foot). The labor cost to perform the repairs to five air conditioning units was $1,024. At trial, Hoopii stated he did not see anyone else on the roof after Ruiz was detained. He saw there were “two air condition units that had cut pipes next to” them and “another two that had the same kind of damage” on the roof. He took photographs of three damaged air conditioning units. Hoopii testified there were eight cut copper pipes
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)