Appeals Court Upholds Walla Walla Man’s Felony Conviction for Smashing Ex’s Electronics
The Washington State Court of Appeals has affirmed a Walla Walla man’s felony conviction for malicious mischief, ruling that the cost to replace thoroughly smashed electronics is a legally sound way to prove damages.
In an unpublished opinion filed Thursday, May 7, Division III of the Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the conviction of Sylvester Cantu Lopez Jr.
The case, which originated in Walla Walla County Superior Court before Judge Brandon L. Johnson, hinged on whether the estimated replacement value of a destroyed iPhone and Ring camera was sufficient to elevate a domestic violence property crime to a felony.
The August 2022 Altercation
The legal saga began on August 7, 2022, when Lopez arrived at the Walla Walla residence of his former girlfriend, Angela Banks.
According to court records, Lopez had an “outburst” and threw Banks’s iPhone and a Ring doorbell camera to the ground, breaking both. As he departed, he threw rocks at the home, shattering a window.
Prosecutors from the Walla Walla County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office charged Lopez with second-degree malicious mischief.
In Washington, second-degree malicious mischief is a crime that requires proof of property damage exceeding $750. The charge included an allegation that the offense was committed against an intimate partner.
A Broken Agreement
Initially, Lopez and prosecutors reached a deal. The parties entered into a Stipulated Order of Continuance, an agreement that would have reduced the charge to third-degree malicious mischief if Lopez complied with certain conditions.
However, Walla Walla District Court Probation filed several notices of non-compliance in 2023.
The state moved to revoke the agreement, alleging Lopez had received four new criminal charges and failed to secure a required chemical dependency evaluation.
In September 2024, Judge Johnson found sufficient grounds to revoke the SOC and proceeded to a fact-finding hearing.
The $750 Question
Relying on the probable cause affidavit and investigative reports, Judge Johnson noted Banks’s estimates that the broken iPhone cost $800 to replace and the Ring camera cost $200.
Combined, the aggregate value easily cleared the $750 felony threshold, resulting in Lopez’s conviction for second-degree malicious mischief.
The court also noted a $500 cost to replace the window, though it was not explicitly referenced in the final order’s aggregate calculation.
On appeal, Lopez’s attorneys—Kyle Bryce Berti and Catherine C. Clark—argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the repair cost.
They contended that simply citing the “replacement cost” doesn’t adequately prove the legal standard of “diminution in value” required under the law.
The Court of Appeals rejected the defense’s argument. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge John Cooney explained that when property is damaged beyond repair, replacement cost is a perfectly valid measure.
“When an item is damaged to the extent that restoration to its former condition can only reasonably be accomplished through replacement, it can be inferred that the value of the item has completely diminished,” Cooney wrote.
“Therefore, a statement of the replacement value is sufficient to describe the reasonable cost to restore the broken property to its former condition.”