People v. Holmes CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2025E083994California961 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

In August 2022, defendant entered a no contest plea to a felony charge of

vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1); all further statutory references are to this

code.) His negotiated disposition included a sentence of two years on felony probation,

with credit for time served. As the factual basis for his plea, defendant stipulated to the

police report concerning his arrest, which reflected that he was apprehended under the La

Cadena bridge in Colton, holding a saw in his hand. Defendant admitted at the scene that

he had been offered $200 by someone named “Milo” to “see if there was copper wire in

the utility line” he had just severed. The line belonged to and was maintained by the

telecommunications company, AT&T, which had to respond to the incident to restore

service to its customers.

2 Defendant’s plea and probation terms both expressly included victim restitution.

An initial estimate prepared by the probation department put AT&T’s damages at more

than $20,000, consisting of $16,550 to “Replace and repair copper” and $5,707.20 to

“Replace and repair fiber.” The restitution hearing was continued several times.

During the interim, AT&T conducted a…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.