People v. Andreotti CA3

Filed 2/5/26 P. v. Andreotti CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Colusa) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C100522

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR63382)

PHILLIP JEFFORDS ANDREOTTI,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Phillip Jeffords Andreotti sexually abused his two stepdaughters over the span of several years. A jury convicted him on one count of continuous sexual abuse of a child and three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child. As to each count, the jury also found true a one strike allegation that defendant committed an enumerated sex offense against more than one victim, mandating an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for each count. (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subds. (b),

1

(e)(4).)1 After striking one count of lewd conduct pursuant to section 1385, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate indeterminate term of 45 years to life in state prison. Defendant now contends his sentence amounts to cruel and/or unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. We conclude the contention is forfeited because defendant did not challenge the constitutionality of the sentence in the trial court. Anticipating our conclusion, defendant asserts in the alternative that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. But because defendant’s constitutional challenge to his sentence lacks merit, his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to raise it in the trial court. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND In November 2004, defendant and his then-wife moved into a house with his wife’s daughters T. and J. T. was seven years old at the time, and J. was four years old. Defendant and his wife also had a daughter, A., who was born sometime after they moved in. When T. entered puberty around the age of eight, defendant began to sexually abuse her. The first incident she could recall involved defendant orally copulating her. The abuse continued for about four years, mostly involving sexual intercourse. T. estimated over 100 such incidents occurred and continued until her mother moved her and her sisters out of the house in June 2009. Defendant did not begin his sexual abuse of J. until after they moved out. Because A. was defendant’s biological daughter, she would visit him on the weekends and J. would often come along. When J. was about 11 years old, defendant had sex with her in his bedroom. Defendant penetrated J.’s vagina from behind. J. testified that