Three Vandalism Cases, Torrance, Judicial Diversion for All

Our client, age 32 and a licensed occupational therapist, suffered from burnout in his job.  He was working at the VA and another local hospital and the long hours, as well as the emotional drain, caught up to him.

His patience grew thin and he became frustrated over trivial things.  He always had extremely dark skin, which made him appear well-tanned and perhaps homeless, however, he was not homeless at all.  He had a master’s degree and worked (if not too much).

One day, on his day off, he went to Denny’s on Hawthorne Boulevard near the Del Amo Mall for breakfast to relax and read the newspaper.  He normally would ride his bike to the restaurant and on this morning, he did so. 

When he pulled up to the restaurant, his brakes did not work and he crashed into the glass front door of the restaurant, causing the front door glass to shatter into well over 100 small pieces.  Our client was embarrassed and offered to pay for the door, but the store manager believed our client did so intentionally and called the police, reporting vandalism.

The Torrance Police came to the location and cited our client for violation of Penal Code § 594, vandalism, as a misdemeanor.  This frustrated our client greatly because he had no intent to damage Denny’s door.  He believed his “homeless look” rendered his claim of just bad brakes meaningless.

In another situation, he did become angry at an ATM machine in Rite Aid in Torrance on Sepulveda Boulevard across from Petco, which took his ATM card and did not return it.  Our client, frustrated at this, picked up a nearby chair and threw it at the ATM machine before leaving the store.  Police were called to the scene and found our client nearby, arresting him again for vandalism.

In his third case, he went to an Arco station, also on Sepulveda Boulevard near the corner of Hawthorne and Sepulveda, and went in to get a Gatorade.  He had to wait in line behind a few other customers.  When the wait became too long, he gave up waiting and in frustration, threw the Gatorade bottle at the cashier, breaking the plexiglass installed during COVID-19 and hitting the clerk in her chest with the Gatorade bottle.  The Torrance Police were again called to the location and cited our client for vandalism and battery (Penal Code § 242).

In each of the cases, our client promised to appear in the Torrance Courthouse, but did not.

He eventually was pulled over for a traffic violation on his way to work one day.  Police ran his driver’s license number and discovered he had three bench warrants for failing to appear.  Police then arrested him.  Bail was set at $30,000 and our client could not post this, so he remained in custody.

At first, the client opted for the public defender, who seemed frustrated at our client and almost declared a doubt under Penal Code § 1368, which would have kept him in custody pending a psychological evaluation of his competency.  The judge sensed the public defender’s frustration and did not declare a doubt, but no offer was extended by the Torrance City Prosecutor on the case.

The client, meanwhile, had been in contact with his family and complained about the slow pace of the court proceedings.  They then called Greg Hill & Associates and his brother spoke with Greg Hill about the cases.

Greg explained that he thought all three cases probably could be referred to judicial diversion, wherein the client would have to pay restitution for the repair expenses to Denny’s front door, the ATM machine and the Arco station plexiglass.  He would also certainly have to stay away from the locations and attend anger management classes.  Greg estimated he would have to attend either 26 classes (which takes six months if at the pace of one per week) or 52 classes.  The client may also have to perform some community service and pay a $100 court diversion fee.

The family then hired Greg Hill and Greg immediately met with the client and discussed the cases.  Greg also explained what judicial diversion was and how, if the client earned dismissal in each case, his occupational therapist license would not be affected.

At a second appearance six days later, Greg then asked each judge assigned to the case to refer the matter to judicial diversion.  Each judge agreed for a diversion period of one year, with the client to attend 26 anger management classes, stay away from the locations of the incidents, and pay restitution for the damage repair costs.  In one of the three cases, our client also had to pay a $100 court diversion fee and in one of the cases, he had to find counseling or a therapist to meet with once per month to discuss his anger issues more deeply than just in anger management classes.

Most importantly, the client was released from custody after 17 days in custody, which he appreciated most.  The family was very grateful for the judicial diversion order in all three cases so the client could preserve his employment and his occupational therapist license.