P v. Valli CA3

Filed 7/12/24 P v. Valli CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097960

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE004937)

v.

KACEY VALLI,

Defendant and Appellant.

After a jury found defendant Kacey Valli guilty of multiple crimes, including assault with a deadly weapon, and after the trial court found true the allegations he had two prior serious felony convictions, the trial court imposed a sentence of four years followed by an indeterminate term of 25 years to life. On appeal, Valli contends (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the trial testimony of his victim, M.T., that his life was “completely destroyed” and that he feared for his life and feared for his children, and (2) his sentence is cruel and/or unusual under the federal and state Constitutions. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND M.T. was at his girlfriend’s aunt’s residence one evening in March 2021 when Valli began physically attacking the aunt. “I’m not here for this,” M.T. declared as he stood up to leave. Valli hit M.T. in the face with something hard, breaking his cheekbone and knocking him to the ground. Valli hit M.T. again when he was on the floor. Bleeding from his eye, M.T. left the residence and tried to drive away. Valli gave chase and drove into M.T.’s car several times. A few weeks later, police officers stopped a car that Valli was traveling in. After Valli ran away, officers found a firearm inside the car near where Valli was sitting. In a January 2023 information, the prosecution alleged Valli committed seven crimes, including two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by someone with a felony conviction (id., § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and had two prior serious felony convictions (id., §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). The first question the prosecutor asked M.T. at trial was “Do you want to be here today?” “No,” M.T. replied. “And how do you feel about being here?” the prosecutor asked. “Not safe,” M.T. answered. “And the only reason you’re here [is] because I subpoenaed you to be here?” “Yes,” M.T. said. Cross-examination of M.T. was somewhat contentious. On a few occasions, the trial court interjected and told M.T. to let defense counsel finish asking a question before responding. On one occasion, the trial court told defense counsel to let M.T. finish answering the question before posing a new one. On another occasion, the trial court instructed M.T. not to respond to defense counsel’s questions by posing a question of his own. On redirect, the prosecutor posed a final question to M.T.: “[S]itting here today, as you’re answering questions, you obviously look agitated and upset, okay? [¶] Can you tell us why that is?” M.T. replied: “My whole life was changed around. This has