People v. Valenti
243 Cal. App. 4th 1140
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Renoir Valenti was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sex offenses involving ~15 child victims spanning ~30 years, including five counts of continuous sexual abuse (Pen. Code § 288.5), several lewd-act counts (§ 288), misdemeanors for annoying/molesting children (§ 647.6), forgery (§ 115), and violating a court order (§ 166). The jury found multiple-victim and substantial-sexual-conduct allegations true.
- The trial court imposed a determinate term (10 years 8 months) and consecutive indeterminate One Strike life terms (eight counts at 15 years to life); it also ordered $450,000 in noneconomic restitution and awarded 1,241 days’ custody credit (including 620 days local conduct credit).
- On appeal Valenti raised insufficiency claims (duration for continuous abuse; lewd intent), challenges to § 647.6 convictions and related jury instructions, failure to admonish victim-support persons, Ex Post Facto and Apprendi-type sentencing errors under the One Strike Law (§ 667.61), and statutory/constitutional challenges to noneconomic restitution awards.
- The Court of Appeal reversed some convictions for insufficient evidence (counts 1, 5, 10), reversed count 14 (§ 288(c)(1)) as an ex post facto error (statute did not exist when acts occurred), reversed counts 6–9 for instructional error on motive (remanded for retrial), vacated One Strike life terms for counts 2 and 12 (pre-2006 conduct) and remanded for resentencing, reversed the noneconomic restitution award in full and remanded for a hearing on three § 288 counts only, and ordered custody-credit recalculation to reflect a 15% conduct-credit cap.
- The court held (inter alia): insufficient evidence that abuse of Denzel spanned three months (so § 288.5 conviction reversed for that count); sufficient evidence of lewd intent as to Jeremy and Bradley; § 647.6 convictions for brief nonsexual hugs/kisses (counts 5 and 10) lacked the required objective offensiveness; giving CALCRIM No. 1122 together with CALCRIM No. 370 removed the motive element and required reversal for some counts; § 1202.4(f)(3)(F) noneconomic restitution does not reach § 288.5 victims and the trial court provided no rational basis for awards to the remaining § 288 victims.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Valenti’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for continuous sexual abuse of Denzel (§ 288.5) | Testimony showed repeated access and molestation within charging window supporting reasonable inference of ≥3 months | Evidence established first molestation occurred only in summer 2012; timeline too vague to prove 3-month span | Reversed count 1 for insufficient evidence; no retrial (three-month element not shown) |
| Lewd intent as to Jeremy and Bradley (§ 288(a)) | Surrounding conduct, pattern with other victims, gifts, touching and prolonged affection support lewd intent | Conduct could be nonsexual affection; disputed | Affirmed convictions for counts 15 and 24 — sufficient circumstantial evidence of lewd intent |
| § 647.6 convictions (counts 5–10): objective offensiveness & jury instruction on motive | Conduct was disturbing and motivated by unnatural sexual interest; motive not required to be proved under CALCRIM No. 370 | Some acts (brief hug, peck on head) not objectively disturbing; motive is element and CALCRIM No. 370 conflicted with CALCRIM No. 1122 | Reversed counts 5 and 10 for insufficient evidence; counts 6–9 reversed and remanded for retrial due to instructional error removing motive element |
| Application of One Strike Law (§ 667.61) to § 288.5 counts (Ex Post Facto & Apprendi issues) | One Strike applies to continuous abuse that continued after 2006 amendment; where abuse continued past 9/20/2006 sentences valid | One Strike applied retroactively to conduct completed before 2006; increases punishment in violation of Ex Post Facto and elements raising sentence must be found by jury | Vacated indeterminate terms for counts 2 and 12 (conduct pre-2006); affirmed One Strike for counts 13 and 20 (trial record shows abuse continued after 2006); count 14 reversed as Ex Post Facto because § 288(c) did not exist at time charged |
| Noneconomic restitution under § 1202.4(f)(3)(F) | Restitution appropriate to compensate victims’ noneconomic losses; court relied on People v. Smith method | Statute limits award to convictions under § 288 (not § 288.5); awards lacked individualized factual basis and jury findings; constitutional challenges | Reversed entire noneconomic restitution order; held § 1202.4(f)(3)(F) doesn’t authorize awards to § 288.5 victims; remanded for a proper restitution hearing limited to counts 15, 23, 24 with victim-specific proof |
| Victim-support person admonition under § 868.5 | Presence of support persons permissible; admonition not required for non-witness advocates | Trial court failed to admonish advocate not to prompt/sway witnesses; deprived fairness | Forfeiture of claim; court read § 868.5 to require admonition only where support person is also a witness; no constitutional violation shown; claim rejected |
| Custody credit (local conduct credit) | Trial awarded full local conduct credit | Violent felony and sex-offender rules cap conduct credit at 15% | Ordered recalculation: limit local conduct credit to 15% and correct total custody credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Zamudio, 43 Cal.4th 327 (review standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Rodriguez, 28 Cal.4th 543 (construction of § 288.5 elements; duration requirement)
- People v. Mejia, 155 Cal.App.4th 86 (generic testimony and the three-month inference for § 288.5)
- People v. Martinez, 11 Cal.4th 434 (elements of § 288(a) and focus on defendant’s intent)
- Lopez v. People, 19 Cal.4th 282 (§ 288 intent required; objective vs. subjective evidence limits)
- People v. Grant, 20 Cal.4th 150 (continuing-offense analysis and retroactivity/ex post facto for continuous sexual abuse)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (any fact increasing penalty beyond prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional error)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (harmless-error analysis when an element was omitted from instructions)
- People v. Mil, 53 Cal.4th 400 (applying Neder in California; burden to prove harmlessness when element omitted)