People v. Goodner CA1/1

── People v. Goodner CA1/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 P. v. Goodner CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171924 v. STEVEN GOODNER, (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. CRI-23015442) Defendant and Appellant. A jury convicted defendant Steven Goodner of two counts of felony vandalism and two counts of misdemeanor malicious mischief but acquitted him of two counts of burglary after he twice caused damage to the same victim’s car. He was sentenced to time served and placed on probation. On appeal, Goodner challenges only his vandalism convictions under Penal Code section 594, subdivision (b)(1), which required proof that “the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction” was at least $400 (damage- value element). The parties agree that the trial court erred under state law by admitting the victim’s hearsay testimony about the costs to repair her vehicle. But Goodner contends, while the Attorney General denies, that the error was prejudicial and that retrial of the damage-value element is barred because there was no substantial evidence to support it. We agree that the admission of the hearsay testimony was prejudicial under state law, but we reject Goodner’s substantial-evidence claim.1 Thus, we reverse the vandalism convictions and remand for the People to elect whether to retry them as felonies or accept their reduction to misdemeanors. (See People v. Jackson (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 371, 373.) I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The 2022 Incident C.E., her husband, and their two young children lived near the Broadway tunnel in San Francisco. On the morning of October 13, 2022, C.E. and the children left the house so she could drive them to school. C.E.’s car, a Toyota Corolla, was parked on the street near the house. As she approached her car, which she left locked the night before, she saw a man she later identified as Goodner in the driver’s seat. He was “rummaging through” the Toyota’s interior. C.E. told Goodner to get out of her car, at which point he did so and began “slowly walking” away on the sidewalk.2 After Goodner left, C.E. observed that the Toyota’s interior was “very dishevel[]ed.” There was “a very large poop” in the space between the driver’s seat and the doorjamb, and the driver’s seat was reclined back and “wet with liquid.” The cup holders had liquid in them, the steering wheel and center 1 As a result, we need not address Goodner’s claim that the evidence’s admission also violated his rights under the federal confrontation clause, which would set a lower bar for finding prejudice. (See People v. Navarro (2021) 12 Cal.5th 285, 310.) 2 C.E. took photographs of Goodner as he walked away from her. She also photographed him about two months later, when she happened to encounter him in downtown San Francisco. We do not discuss the evidence of Goodner’s identity in detail, as it is uncontested for purposes of this appeal that he was the person who damaged the interior of the Toyota during both charged incidents. 2 console had “burn marks” on them, and “the seat belt receptacle for the d