SAN FRANCISCO — A San Francisco Superior Court judge dismissed one of two felony vandalism charges against an accused man previously found mentally incompetent to stand trial after concluding the alleged damage to a business window and sign stemmed from a single act, while holding the accused to answer on one amended felony count.
Judge Gloria Rhynes presided over the preliminary hearing, where Deputy Public Defender Mario A. Gutierrez represented the accused, who appeared in custody. Deputy District Attorney Owen Nelson appeared for the prosecution. Before testimony began, Gutierrez informed the court the accused had already been found mentally incompetent to stand trial and criminal proceedings had been suspended under California law pending placement at a treatment facility.
Gutierrez explained that “Mr. [the accused] was found out competent to stay in trial a few weeks ago in department 15” and was “awaiting Conrad placement,” while also scheduled to appear later that day in competency proceedings.
Rhynes questioned why the preliminary hearing was proceeding despite the suspension of criminal proceedings.
“So the court suspended criminal proceedings?” Rhynes asked.
“That’s correct,” Gutierrez replied.
“And found he’s incompetent to assist you.”
“Correct.”
“And why are we proceeding? If the criminal proceeding has already been suspended?”
Nelson responded that Penal Code Section 1368.1 permits a limited number of proceedings after a finding of incompetency, including a preliminary hearing. After reviewing the statute with counsel, Rhynes acknowledged she had not previously encountered the issue but agreed the hearing could proceed.
“I just never seen it. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist,” Rhynes said before allowing the preliminary hearing to move forward.
The prosecution first called San Francisco Police Officer Jeanette Romero, who testified she responded to a vandalism call Jan. 23 at Raven Pilates, located at 1738 Polk St. Upon arrival, she observed a broken window.
Romero testified dispatch described the suspect as “a male wearing a blue police, blue sweats, pink hair, thin built.” Officers located an individual matching that description walking south on Polk Street and detained him. Romero identified the accused in court as the individual she detained.
According to Romero, witness Vadin Safyan told her he saw “a man throw a construction sign into the window.” Romero testified officers conducted a field show-up, during which Safyan identified the accused as the person responsible. When Rhynes asked for clarification, Romero testified Safyan said “100%” that the accused was the person “who vandalized the window.”
Romero also testified she reviewed surveillance video, which she said confirmed the witness account.
During cross-examination, Gutierrez attempted to question Romero about the accused’s mental health and whether he had been placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold after his arrest.
The prosecution objected, and Rhynes initially sustained the objection, finding the questioning outside the scope of direct examination and lacking relevance based on Romero’s testimony. Gutierrez argued the questioning was relevant both to the accused’s state of mind and to his request that the offense ultimately be reduced to a misdemeanor.
Gutierrez stated, “I do think that … Mr. [the accused] does have a due process rather than the 5th and 14th Amendments to cross-examine about the universe of facts surrounding whether he committed a crime, which is at issue here.”
Although the court limited that line of questioning, Gutierrez later established that another officer transported the accused to San Francisco General Hospital rather than jail and that Romero believed Officer Randhawa had placed the accused on a psychiatric hold. Romero also testified the accused did not flee or fight officers during his detention.
The prosecution next called Officer Zachariah Allen, who testified he spoke with Raven Pilates owner Tiffany Burkhart. Allen said Burkhart reported that someone broke her business window, damaged a wooden Raven Pilates sign and had not been given permission to damage either item. Allen testified Burkhart estimated replacing the sign would cost about $1,200.
Sergeant Daniel Burns testified he later contacted Burkhart and the property’s management company regarding repair costs. Burns said Burkhart provided an estimate for the broken window only and indicated the property management company had paid the invoice. Burns testified property manager Maya Crans told him the company paid $1,975 to replace the broken window. Defense counsel objected to portions of Burns’ testimony as hearsay, but Rhynes overruled the objections.
Following the close of evidence, Gutierrez argued the prosecution improperly charged two felony vandalism counts arising from what he described as a single act.
“It’s one act of vandalism,” Gutierrez argued. “The sign seems like he crashed through the window, broke another item in the business. That’s one act. That’s one crime, not two separate vandalisms.”
Gutierrez also asked the court to reduce the remaining charge to a misdemeanor under Penal Code Section 17(b), arguing the alleged conduct reflected a person experiencing a severe mental health crisis rather than deliberate criminal conduct.
He told the court the case “lacks enough maliciousness, lacks enough particularity, lacks enough sophistication,” adding that the accused “doesn’t know these individuals” and describing the incident as “individuals suffering from mental health, acute mental health episodes, perhaps hearing voices, committing an act, and then going to San Francisco General.”
Nelson opposed the reduction request, arguing there was no evidence presented establishing the accused’s alleged mental condition at the time of the offense.
“We know that he was 5150. We don’t know why he was 5150. We don’t know the extent of what was going on,” Nelson argued. “If Mr. Gutierrez wanted to put in evidence regarding that subject matter at this preliminary hearing, he is more than entitled to do so. He has not done so.”
Rhynes questioned both attorneys extensively about whether the alleged damage to the window and the sign constituted one offense or two.
After hearing argument, Nelson acknowledged his understanding was that the accused threw the sign through the window, damaging both in a single act, and said he would submit the issue to the court.
Rhynes agreed the evidence supported only one vandalism count.
“I tend to agree now that I’ve gotten some illumination. It’s not clear from the evidence, but I know that the DA is saying to me somehow the sign was thrown through the window. And to me that probably is more one vandalism charge.”
The judge denied Gutierrez’s request to reduce the remaining charge to a misdemeanor.
“The damage is over $2,000. It’s a stranger business. … It concerns me that there doesn’t appear to be any connection except that he’s damaging a piece of property that he doesn’t even know. And then you have another pending felony matter. So I’m denying the 17(b) at this point.”
Applying the probable cause standard governing preliminary hearings, Rhynes held the accused to answer on one amended felony vandalism count covering both the damaged window and signage.
“I am going to make the holding order into count one,” Rhynes ruled. “I’m orally amending the count one to include not only the window but signage.”
The court dismissed the second felony vandalism count, concluding the evidence supported only a single offense encompassing both items.
The accused was ordered to appear for arraignment on the amended charge later this month while competency proceedings continued separately. Bail remained set at $25,000 pending a hearing later that afternoon.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
