People v. Valdez
2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 399
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Valdez was convicted by a jury of seven counts of lewd and lascivious acts upon a child (Pen. Code § 288, subd. (a)).
- The three victims were Crystal (counts 1–2), Jessica (counts 3–6), and Irene (count 8), who were the grandchildren of Valdez’s girlfriend.
- The offenses occurred in 2001 in Wilmington and involved separate acts and occasions against different victims.
- The jury found the offenses involved multiple victims under Penal Code § 667.61, subd. (b) (one strike).
- The trial court sentenced four counts (1, 3, 6, 8) to consecutive terms of 15 years to life and the remaining three counts to concurrent 15 years to life.
- Valdez timely appealed, challenging (1) the legality of multiple one-strike sentences for Jessica when only the multiple-victim factor was the aggravating circumstance, and (2) application of the Estrada rule to a 2006 amendment to § 667.61; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple one-strike life terms can be imposed for multiple victims when offenses were committed on separate occasions. | Valdez argues the 1998 § 667.61 allows only one life term per victim. | Valdez contends the statute limits punishment per victim, preventing multiple life terms. | Yes; multiple life terms per victim per occasion are permitted under § 667.61(e)(5). |
| Whether the 2006 amendments to § 667.61 foreclose consecutive one-strike sentences for predicate offenses under § 288(a). | Valdez asserts the amendments preclude consecutive sentences for his offenses. | Valdez argues the amendments limit concurrent sentencing and extend Estrada-like protections. | No; the amendments do not proscribe consecutive one-strike sentences; court retained discretion to impose consecutive terms. |
| Whether Estrada’s rule applies to the 2006 amendments reducing punishment. | Valdez relies on Estrada to apply ameliorative amendments to未 final judgments. | State contends Estrada is misapplied due to a misreading of the amendments. | Estrada not necessary to decide; issue resolved on statutory interpretation rather than Estrada. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. DeSimone, 62 Cal.App.4th 693 (Cal. App. 1998) (one strike life term available for multi-victim offenses under § 667.61(e))
- People v. Murphy, 65 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. App. 1998) (one life term per victim per occasion for violent sex offenses)
- People v. Wutzke, 28 Cal.4th 923 (Cal. 2002) (separate life terms for each victim on each separate occasion)
- People v. Stewart, 119 Cal.App.4th 163 (Cal. App. 2004) (statutory interpretation supporting multiple victims under § 667.61(e)(5))
- Murphy, 65 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. App. 1998) (multivictim offenses punished more severely; life terms per victim per occasion)
- Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (amendatory statutes lessening punishment presumed applicable to pending cases)
- People v. Floyd, 31 Cal.4th 179 (Cal. 2003) (Estrada rule applied to ameliorative amendments)
- Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal.3d 711 (Cal. 1989) (statutory construction guidance for Penal Code provisions)
- Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (Cal. 1995) (aids statutory interpretation principles)