People v. Weary CA3

Filed 7/22/22 P. v. Weary CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094201

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE002234)

v.

ANDRE WEARY,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found him guilty of vandalism causing at least $400 in damage (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)),1 the trial court placed defendant Andre Weary on formal probation for a period of two years. On appeal, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence he committed vandalism. Disagreeing, we affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Around 3:00 a.m. one day in November 2018, a casino’s surveillance camera captured defendant (who later said he was upset because he had lost money while gambling) hit a wall with his hand moments before he entered a men’s bathroom. Defendant left the bathroom 27 seconds later. One minute afterwards, water was coming out of the bathroom and spreading onto the casino’s carpeted floor. About three minutes before defendant entered the bathroom, a man who worked at the casino left the bathroom, and testified at trial that he used one of two urinals (which were right next to each other). The man saw no water leaking out of either urinal or the wall and saw nothing broken or damaged. A casino security guard who responded to a report of “a flood coming out of the men’s restroom,” saw water “gushing” out of a hole in the wall above a urinal. In the two years that he worked at the casino before the incident, that security guard had never seen any water leaks in the men’s bathroom. A plumber whose business repaired the problem, and who testified as an expert witness at trial, explained that pictures of the damaged urinal pipe taken by his employee before repair reflected no corrosion where a hole was found. The plumber further testified that the urinal pipe would not have leaked or broken on its own, but as a result of “forceful” “side to side” movements. “[I]t wouldn’t be one hit, it would be back and forth several times,” the expert explained. A detective testified at trial that, in a phone call that occurred about two months after the bathroom incident, defendant told him that when he was inside the bathroom, a urinal was spraying water and got his shirt wet. Defendant got upset and left without telling anybody about the malfunctioning urinal because it “wasn’t his business.” When the detective told defendant that he intended to seek a warrant for defendant’s arrest, defendant wondered how the detective would prove that defendant did anything wrong, as there were no witnesses.