People v. Gonzalez CA4/1

── People v. Gonzalez CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Gonzalez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D085356 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF007468, JCF007468) MATTHEW GONZALEZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie H. Chow and James Spradley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  I. INTRODUCTION A jury convicted Matthew Gonzalez of two counts of vandalism, four counts of violating court orders, burglary, and grand theft. On appeal, Gonzalez challenges only the grand theft count. He claims there was insufficient evidence of theft’s intent element because based on his history with the victim, he intended to return the stolen property. We find sufficient evidence of the requisite intent and affirm the conviction. II. BACKGROUND In 2024, the Imperial County District Attorney’s Office charged Gonzalez with stalking (Pen. Code,1 § 646.9, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a); counts 2 & 9), four counts of violating court orders (§§ 166, subd. (a)(4), 273.6, subd. (a); counts 3, 4, 7 & 8), first degree residential burglary (§ 459; count 5), and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); count 6).2 At Gonzalez’s trial, the jury heard testimony from his wife, Brittany Morales. Morales described the couple’s relationship as toxic, with numerous separations and reconciliations continuing even after restraining orders were issued against Gonzalez. Morales also told the jury about several prior incidents where Gonzalez took her property. On one occasion, Gonzalez took Morales’s phone, car keys, and purse, locked her in their bedroom, and prevented her from leaving. In another, Gonzalez did not want Morales to go on a trip, so he took her identification card and passport, locked her in their bedroom, and blocked her car with his. Morales described a third incident where the couple argued 1 All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. 2 Because Gonzalez only challenges his grand theft conviction, we focus on that offense and omit matters related to the other counts. 2 before Morales was leaving for a concert and Gonzalez forcibly took Morales’s purse. Finally, Gonzalez took Morales’s pink Gucci purse during yet another physical altercation. When asked if she always got her purses back from Gonzalez, Morales testified that she did not recover the pink Gucci purse. As for the charged grand theft, Morales stated that after staying with her parents, she returned home on Sunday, January 7, 2024, to find her patio doorframe broken and her bedroom a mess. She discovered that numerous items were missing including clothing, shoes, four purses, perfumes, a vibrator, candles, a pink taser, and the couple’s wedding rings. Pictures of Morales and Gonzalez were also displayed around the house. The follow