Bonilla

*652 Defendants Sandra Bonilla, Guillermo Bonilla Chirinos, and Juan Bonilla Chirinos 1 appeal from jury verdicts finding each of them guilty of felony vandalism. Defendants argue they received ineffective assistance of counsel 2 because their trial counsel: (1) failed to raise Commercial Code section 9609 and other statutes as a defense to the vandalism charge; (2) failed to clarify the vandalism jury instruction after the jury asked which items were part of the charge; and (3) should have introduced Guillermo's telephone records to support Guillermo's credibility at trial. They further argue the trial court abused its discretion by denying their: (1) request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; and (2) motion requesting the trial court reduce their felony convictions to misdemeanors and not impose custody time. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendants' arguments on appeal do not require a detailed recitation of the evidence or of the trial. We summarize the background facts here and incorporate any facts relevant to their contentions in the pertinent parts of the Discussion.

Sandra's April 2013 payment to…