NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge at the Harbor Justice Center declined to reduce a felony vandalism charge Thursday despite concerns raised by the public defender about investigators’ identification of the accused, their preparation for the hearing and whether the accused was properly advised of his constitutional rights.
Orange County Superior Court Judge John S. Adams allowed the felony charge to proceed following a preliminary hearing in which two law enforcement officers testified about a series of alleged vandalism incidents at an apartment complex in Mission Viejo.
The accused faced a felony charge of vandalism involving damage of $400 or more, stemming from incidents allegedly occurring April 16, April 20 and April 28, 2025.
The prosecution called Orange County Sheriff’s Department Officer Stephen Wayne, who testified that he was dispatched to the apartment complex April 28 after community manager Lisa Fernandez reported that two individuals had attempted to force their way into the leasing office around 3 a.m., causing damage.
Wayne testified that Fernandez also reported two earlier incidents of vandalism at the complex involving what she believed were the same individuals.
According to Wayne, Fernandez estimated the total damage from the three incidents at approximately $3,800.
During questioning by the prosecution, Wayne discussed surveillance footage from the incidents. He testified that only one video provided sufficiently clear images, without darkness or shadows obscuring the individuals, to assist in identifying the accused.
On cross-examination, the public defender asked Wayne whether he had reviewed his body camera footage before appearing in court. Wayne acknowledged that he had not.
The defense also questioned why Fernandez had not reported the earlier incidents before April 28 and why the evidence had not been uploaded to Evidence.com sooner. Wayne was unable to provide an explanation.
The prosecution then called Officer Mario Saldivar, who testified that he had worked as an investigator in Mission Viejo for four years and had 24 years of law enforcement experience.
Saldivar testified that he received evidence uploaded to Evidence.com by Santos Garcia and subsequently identified the accused when he was brought to the station May 27, 2025, in connection with an unrelated matter.
However, when the prosecution asked Saldivar to identify the accused in the courtroom, he initially struggled to do so.
Saldivar explained that the accused appeared different from when he had previously encountered him, describing changes in his weight, overall appearance, hairstyle and facial hair.
During cross-examination, the public defender questioned Saldivar about his preparation for the hearing.
Saldivar acknowledged that he had only briefly reviewed the investigative report and surveillance footage because he was simultaneously handling another case.
The defense also questioned Saldivar about his failure to wear a body camera during the investigation, despite departmental requirements.
Saldivar explained that he had not worn a camera because he was accompanied by another officer who was wearing one.
The questioning then turned to whether the accused had been advised of his Miranda rights during the investigation.
Saldivar acknowledged that no attorney was present when the accused was questioned while under arrest. He also testified that he had not personally read the accused his Miranda rights.
According to the testimony, an interpreter was provided with a card containing a Spanish translation of the Miranda warning, but no law enforcement officer personally delivered the warning.
Following the testimony, the public defender expressed frustration with the investigation, describing what she had heard as leaving her “dumbfounded.”
The defense questioned how an officer with 24 years of experience could fail to personally administer a Miranda warning, conduct questioning without an attorney present and struggle to identify the accused in court after previously identifying him from surveillance footage.
The public defender also challenged the reliability of the identification, pointing to the limited quality of the surveillance footage and Saldivar’s difficulty recognizing the accused during the hearing.
Based on the testimony concerning the Miranda warning, the defense requested that the accused’s statements be excluded, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.
The defense also asked Adams to reduce the vandalism charge from a felony to a misdemeanor.
The public defender argued that the report specifically identified April 16, 2025, as the date of the offense and that the damage associated with that incident did not exceed $300, below the $400 threshold generally required for felony vandalism under California law.
The prosecution disputed that interpretation, arguing that the report described the conduct as beginning April 16 and continuing through subsequent incidents.
According to the prosecution, the allegations encompassed all three incidents rather than only the damage attributed to April 16.
Adams accepted the prosecution’s interpretation that the continuing incidents were included within the allegations and declined to reduce the charge.
The judge also addressed the defense’s concerns about the Miranda warning, stating that he “is surprised as well” by the circumstances described in the testimony.
However, Adams concluded that the warning did not have to be delivered personally by a law enforcement officer and that an interpreter could communicate the required rights while an officer was present.
The court ultimately allowed the felony vandalism charge to proceed without reduction.
The accused is scheduled to return to court Nov. 2.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to 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.
