Appellant’s singly angry impulse which resulted in damage to property owned by two separate victims was properly aggregated for purposes of elevating the offense to felony vandalism. Appellant was convicted of felony vandalism for throwing a statue through the front window of a house in which his mother was temporarily residing, and breaking her car windows. On appeal, he contended that because his father was the sole owner of the house, and the damage to the house and car respecively did not total $400 or more, he could be convicted only of two counts of misdemeanor vandalism. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed the conviction for felony vandalism. Citing People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 as construed by In re Arthur V. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 61, the appellate court held that where a defendant engages in vandalism which causes damage to the property of more than one victim, aggregation of the damage amount is appropriate when the damage did not result from separate and distinct criminal acts, but was inflicted pursuant to a single general impulse, intention, or plan. Here, appellant had one single angry impulse directed at his mother’s refusal to let him into the house. Therefore, aggregation of the damage amounts was appropriate. Further, the jury instructions which allowed the jury to aggregate the damages from multiple acts of vandalism also comport with Bailey and Arthur V., and were therefore proper.