DISCUSSION

One commits vandalism by maliciously damaging, destroying, or defacing with graffiti any real or personal property that is not one’s own. (§ 594, subd. (a).) Defendant argues there was insufficient evidence he committed vandalism, as the prosecution “failed to prove [he] caused the damage to the pipe in the casino bathroom.” The People argue there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt. We agree with the People. “In reviewing a criminal conviction challenged as lacking evidentiary support, ‘ “the court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—that is, evidence which is

2 This case was fully briefed and assigned to this panel on June 1, 2022.

3 reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation.] The same standard of review applies to cases in which the prosecution relies mainly on circumstantial evidence [citation] . . . [citation]. An appellate court must accept logical inferences that the jury might have drawn from the circumstantial evidence.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 396.) “ ‘Before the judgment of the trial court can be set aside for the insufficiency of the evidence, it must clearly appear that on no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the verdict of the [finder of fact].’ ” (People v. Sanghera (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1567, 1573.) Here, circumstantial evidence reflected defendant caused the damage to the pipe in the casino bathroom in November 2018: (a) a man who left the bathroom minutes before defendant entered, testified nothing was wrong with the pipes and there was no water leaking when he was in the bathroom; (b) moments before defendant entered the bathroom, he hit a wall because he was upset about his gambling losses (motive); (c) defendant was in the bathroom for about 30 seconds (opportunity); (d) about one minute after defendant left the bathroom, water was spreading from the bathroom floor into the casino area (temporal proximity); and (e) an expert testified the pipe above a urinal broke due to forceful side-to-side movement. Taken together, this is sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational trier of fact to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant caused the damage to the urinal piping. (Cf. People v. Jones (2011) 51 Cal.4th 346, 380 [“very strong circumstantial evidence of defendant’s identity as” a perpetrator existed, as “[w]ithin a very few minutes of the robbery, defendant and another man were trapped inside a nearby apartment with the stolen property”].) Defendant’s contention that it is “unreasonable to believe” that defendant “could have caused” the damage to the bathroom piping “in that short span of time,” is not persuasive. Defendant provides no citation to the record in support of the assertion, and

4 the expert witness testified that the pipe likely broke due to “several” forceful “back and forth” movements—an event which quite plausibly can occur in mere seconds.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

EARL, J.

We concur:

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

/s/

RENNER, J.

5