Carrasco

*717 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

In a case of first impression, we hold that where a defendant commits multiple acts of vandalism pursuant to a single general impulse, intention or plan, the fact that the damage is to property owned by more than one victim does not preclude aggregation resulting in an offense of felony vandalism.

Appellant challenges a jury verdict finding him guilty of felony vandalism. He does not deny that when his mother refused him entry to a house in which she was temporarily residing, he threw a statue through the front window of the house and thereafter broke the windows of her car. He contends, however, that because his father was the sole owner of the house, and the damages to the house and car respectively did not total $400 or more, he could be convicted only of two counts of misdemeanor vandalism. Guided by the rule of aggregation articulated by our Supreme Court in People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 543 , 360 P.2d 39 ] (Bailey) and construed in In re Arthur V. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 61 , 68 [ 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 148 ] (Arthur V.), we hold that where a defendant engages in vandalism that causes damage to the property of more than one victim,…