People v. Valdez CA2/4
B317214
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 9, 2022Background:
- Defendant Jaime Valdez was convicted by a jury of assault with a deadly weapon (knife) and robbery; he pled no contest to resisting arrest. The court found great bodily injury true on the assault, found the personal-weapon allegation on the robbery not true, and found prior strike/serious-felony allegations true; total sentence 63 years to life.
- On December 4, 2018, Valdez stabbed Heriberto Marin while Marin slept in a van; Marin identified Valdez at trial by a distinctive face tattoo and prior encounters.
- About an hour later the same morning, Valdez entered Lalo’s Carniceria, grabbed owner Eneida Luviano by hair/neck, pressed a pointy object to her chest, took $400–$500, and fled; Luviano and a witness identified Valdez in a photo lineup.
- Valdez fled from deputies on December 7, 2018, and was later detained; he pleaded no contest to the resisting count.
- At trial the court denied the defense motion to sever the assault and robbery counts and denied a Romero motion to strike prior strikes; the court orally awarded 281 days’ actual custody credit plus 15% presentence conduct credit but the minute order and abstract omitted the conduct-credit days—appellate court affirmed on the merits and ordered correction of the clerical record to reflect conduct credits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying motion to sever assault and robbery counts | Joinder proper; identity evidence for both offenses strong; statutory preference for joinder (efficiency) | Severance required because weaker ID (stabbing) could be bolstered by robbery evidence and create propensity inference/prejudice | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; distinctive face tattoo and multiple prior encounters supported reliable ID and minimized spillover prejudice |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Romero motion to strike prior strikes/serious enhancements | Deny relief — priors similar to current offenses; recent assault; record shows recidivism and dangerousness | Court only relied on recidivism and failed to balance mitigating factors; prior offenses not significantly violent | Denial affirmed — court reasonably considered nature of priors, current offenses, and defendant’s prospects; decision not arbitrary |
| Whether sentencing minute order and abstract must be corrected to reflect presentence conduct credits | Oral award was 281 days actual credit plus 15% conduct (i.e., 42 days); clerical records must match oral pronouncement | Minute order/abstract omitted conduct days and must be corrected | Modified — judgment affirmed otherwise; trial court ordered to correct minute order and abstract to show conduct credit days |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (establishes court discretion under § 1385 to strike prior serious/violent felonies in furtherance of justice)
- People v. Westerfield, 6 Cal.5th 632 (discusses joinder preference under § 954 and factors for severance review)
- People v. Merriman, 60 Cal.4th 1 (appellate review of severance rulings limited to facts known at time of motion)
- People v. Williams, 17 Cal.4th 148 (factors trial court must consider when deciding to strike strikes)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (standards for abuse of discretion review of Romero denials)
- In re Large, 41 Cal.4th 538 (no requirement for trial court to explain reasons when declining to strike priors)
- People v. Gabriel, 189 Cal.App.4th 1070 (oral pronouncement controls over conflicting minute order)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (courts may correct clerical errors and appellate courts may order correction of abstracts of judgment)