People v. Anagnostou CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 2, 2016A145335California3,213 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bruiniers, J.

I. BACKGROUND

Anagnostou does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We discuss the relevant facts for background and context.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1 Stalking The victim, Luiza,2 lived on a cul-de-sac in a San Bruno residential neighborhood with her husband and two daughters. Anagnostou’s house was situated near the entrance of the cul-de-sac. After Luiza declined Anagnostou’s invitation to go with him on a motorcycle ride and to accompany him to Greece, Anagnostou began to stand outside his home and to watch Luiza’s family “nonstop.” On one occasion in 2001, Luiza returned home with her then 12-year-old daughter, Julie, and parked near Anagnostou’s house. Anagnostou ran after them, grabbed Julie’s arm, and said he needed to speak to the child in private. When Luiza refused, Anagnostou became aggressive and cursed at her. Over the next five years, Anagnostou’s obsessive behavior escalated. He stood outside and called out Luiza’s and Julie’s names. He attempted to stop Luiza’s car, sometimes jumping in front of it. He placed food at the family’s door and in their mailbox. Anagnostou also called the…

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.