![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/SF-Hall-of-Justice-2021-3-e1715713621181-765x510.jpg\")
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\tSan Francisco Hall of Justice \u2013 Photo by David M. Greenwald\t\t<\/p>\n
SAN FRANCISCO \u2014 A San Francisco judge reduced a felony vandalism charge to a misdemeanor despite opposition from the prosecution, after the defense cited the accused\u2019s apparent mental health episode on the day of his arrest and his subsequent progress in reentry.<\/p>\n
The accused is charged with one count of felony vandalism, with damages totaling $2,400.<\/p>\n
On Aug. 5 in Department 20 of the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Deputy District Attorney Max Draskovich called Officer Charles Schwartz to testify about the day of the accused\u2019s arrest.<\/p>\n
Schwartz said he responded to a call for service involving \u201cthreats and report of battery\u201d at the Soma Park Inn in San Francisco. When Schwartz arrived at the scene, he spoke with a 911 caller who told him that an individual on the second floor was \u201ccausing a disturbance \u2026 throwing things off the balcony.\u201d<\/p>\n
Schwartz then went to the second floor, where he observed a \u201cwhite male standing on the second floor balcony\u201d who was \u201cyelling, appeared to be agitated and kind of pacing.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFor my safety, I decided to detain him,\u201d Schwartz said, testifying that the accused \u201cstarted to back away from me\u201d and that he had \u201cused force to get him in handcuffs safely.\u201d<\/p>\n
Draskovich then asked Schwartz what he had seen in the hotel room.<\/p>\n
According to Schwartz, the property was \u201cdestroyed.\u201d He noted that he saw that the \u201cbed and headboard were moved around and the refrigerator was damaged.\u201d<\/p>\n
Upon a second assessment of the scene, Schwartz said he also saw a \u201cbroken mirror and damaged TV.\u201d<\/p>\n
Draskovich then asked Schwartz about the estimated cost of the damage. Schwartz said that after he spoke to the manager, the estimated cost was $2,400.<\/p>\n
During cross-examination, certified law student Thelo Coleman, supervised by Deputy Public Defender Deborah Awolope, asked Schwartz whether, when he spoke with the assistant manager and a friend of the assistant manager, either of them saw the accused committing the vandalism.<\/p>\n
Schwartz said the assistant manager did not see the accused commit the vandalism. He also said the friend \u201cnever saw\u201d the vandalism either but \u201csaw [the accused] throw the [window] screen off the balcony.\u201d<\/p>\n
Coleman then asked about Schwartz\u2019s interaction with the accused.<\/p>\n
Schwartz confirmed that when he arrived at the hotel, the accused yelled down from the balcony to the officer, \u201cI\u2019ve been calling you.\u201d<\/p>\n
Coleman then asked Schwartz whether he recalled the accused saying, \u201cI called the police, why are you doing this,\u201d while the accused was being detained.<\/p>\n
Schwartz said he did recall the accused saying that.<\/p>\n
Coleman then asked whether Schwartz recalled the accused saying, \u201cI called 911 because I\u2019m in fear of my safety.\u201d After reviewing his body-worn camera footage, Schwartz testified that he did recall the accused saying that.<\/p>\n
After detaining the accused, Schwartz asked his partner, Officer Goodman, to ask the accused the 5150 questions. Schwartz clarified to the court that 5150 questions are mental health questions used to determine whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others.<\/p>\n
Coleman asked Schwartz whether 5150 questions were asked of everyone who is detained, to which Schwartz said the questions are asked when officers believe an individual is experiencing a mental health episode.<\/p>\n
Schwartz said he \u201crecalls [the accused] called [911] numerous times\u201d when asked by Coleman whether he was aware that the accused had called 911 five times before the officer arrived.<\/p>\n
According to Coleman, the accused said, \u201cI smell gas,\u201d \u201cThey are trying to gas me,\u201d \u201cThey are trying to kill me,\u201d and that he was \u201cgetting gang-stalked and harassed.\u201d<\/p>\n
Coleman then asked Schwartz why he did not investigate the claims the accused was making. Schwartz said that he \u201cdidn\u2019t investigate because [the accused was] having a mental health episode.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge John Echeverria then excused Schwartz and began hearing arguments from the defense and prosecution.<\/p>\n
Coleman requested a motion under Penal Code section 17(b) to reduce the felony vandalism charge to a misdemeanor. Echeverria said there was \u201csufficient evidence already\u201d to rule on the 17(b) motion but allowed the defense to make its case.<\/p>\n
Echeverria also noted the accused\u2019s limited criminal history, stating that there had been no new convictions in more than five years.<\/p>\n
Coleman explained that the circumstances were mitigating because the accused \u201ccalled the police multiple times\u201d and \u201cgenuinely believed he was in danger.\u201d<\/p>\n
The accused had a \u201csincerity of belief of danger\u201d and believed \u201cthat he was a victim of something,\u201d according to Coleman.<\/p>\n
Coleman highlighted the accused\u2019s successful reentry efforts and the \u201cstrides he made\u201d to better his life. He noted that the accused is employed, has received positive reports from Assertive Case Management, or ACM, and attends therapy.<\/p>\n
Draskovich then raised the accused\u2019s criminal history, explaining that the accused had a prior misdemeanor vandalism charge in 2010, two federal firearm offenses and four vandalism charges when he was a minor. He argued that the accused was a \u201crisk to public safety\u201d and could potentially reoffend.<\/p>\n
Draskovich also pointed out that the estimated cost of the damage was \u201csix times the amount for felony vandalism\u201d before objecting to the 17(b) motion.<\/p>\n
Echeverria said he considered the case\u2019s \u201cnature and circumstances\u201d troubling with regard to a 17(b) motion.<\/p>\n
However, Echeverria acknowledged that the accused\u2019s criminal history did not include any violent offenses, as well as the accused\u2019s positive ACM progress and \u201ccontributions to the community.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is a hiccup. What happened is a step backward,\u201d Echeverria said before granting the 17(b) motion, reducing the accused\u2019s felony charge to misdemeanor vandalism.<\/p>\n
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:<\/p>\n
Facebook: https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/DavisVanguard<\/a><\/p>\n LinkedIn: https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc\/<\/a><\/p>\n Instagram: https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/davisvanguard\/<\/a><\/p>\n X: https:\/\/x.com\/davisvanguard<\/a><\/p>\n Bluesky: https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social<\/a><\/p>\n Subscribe <\/a>to the Vanguard News letters.\u00a0 To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org\/donate<\/a> or give directly through ActBlue<\/a>.\u00a0 Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.<\/p>\n Categories: Breaking News<\/a> Court Watch<\/a> Northern California Court Watch<\/a> San Francisco Court Watch<\/a> Vanguard Court Watch<\/a> Tags: Court Watch<\/a> Felony Vandalism<\/a> mental health<\/a> Misdemeanor Reduction<\/a> Reentry<\/a> San Francisco Superior Court<\/a>