Guilty of Arson & Fraud on Public

GoFundMe Request Based on Fake Claim of Racial Animus 
Post 5199

An Attempt to Profit the Public by Setting Fire to his Own Food Truck Fails

Avonte Ahikim Hartsfield burned down his own food truck and falsely reported that he was the victim of arson in October 2021. He then created a GoFundMe campaign titled "Rebuilding After a Series of Hate Crimes," claiming he was a victim of hate crimes and arson. The campaign raised $102,276 from more than 2,000 donors.

In The People v. Avonte Ahikim Hartsfield, D084114, California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division (September 24, 2025) affirmed the conviction.

FACTS
Investigation and Evidence:

The fire department and police conducted investigations and found that the fire was intentionally set by an open flame. Surveillance footage placed Hartsfield near the scene at the time of the fire. Hartsfield's claims of being a victim of hate crimes were found to be false.

Legal Proceedings:

Hartsfield was charged with arson, insurance fraud, presenting a false claim to insurance, presenting false information supporting an insurance claim, and grand theft. He was convicted of all charges and sentenced to five years and four months in prison.

LAW
Grand Theft by False Pretenses:

To prove theft by false pretenses the prosecution must show that the defendant made a false pretense or representation to the owner of property with the intent to defraud, and the owner transferred the property in reliance on the misrepresentation. The misrepresentation must materially influence the owner to hand over the property, but it does not need to be the only reason for the transfer.

Substantial Evidence Supported the Conviction for Grand Theft by False Pretenses

The court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that donors gave money to Hartsfield in reliance on his false representations about being a victim of arson and a hate crime. The jury could reasonably infer that donors were materially influenced by Hartsfield's false pretense.

Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. The appellate court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support a reasonable inference that donors transferred funds in reliance on Hartsfield's misrepresentation that he was an arson victim.

The Court of Appeals considered that substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences that can be taken from the evidence. To prove theft by false pretenses under section 484, the People must show:

 the defendant made a false pretense or representation to the owner of property;
with the intent to defraud the owner of that property; and
the owner transferred the property to the defendant in reliance on the representation

The Court of Appeals concluded it was reasonable for the jury to infer donors gave money in direct response to Hartsfield's seemingly substantiated and highly sympathetic plea for help to recover from arson. He supported his arson claims with photos of the burnt truck, which provided the public a basis for believing Hartsfield was telling the truth about the fire. Also, the Court of Appeals concluded that it defied logic to suggest donors would have given him money exclusively for reasons other than his shocking story of a racially motivated arson with a noose left behind as some kind of message of hate.

Because there was substantial evidence to support the reasonable inference that donors gave money to Hartsfield in reliance on his false representations about being a victim of arson and a hate crime.

ZALMA OPINION

Arson is a violent form of fraud. Firefighters and nearby people are injured and die in arson fires. Mr. Hartsfield defrauded the public by claiming he was the victim of a hate crime and not only sought to profit the value of his food truck from his insurer he begged the public to pay him as the victim of racists when, in truth, he actually set the fire himself. He will serve the full sentence rendered and be required to pay restitution to those he defrauded.

(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

Go to X @bzalma;  Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.