People v. Valdez CA3

Filed 3/27/23 P. v. Valdez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C095881

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20CF00925)

KEVIN MITCHELL VALDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Kevin Mitchell Valdez of rape (Pen. Code, § 261, subd. (a)(2)1 -- count 1), sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A) -- count 2), assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4) -- count 3), and false imprisonment by force (§ 236 -- count 4). The trial court sentenced him to 15 years in prison. Defendant now contends (1) his speedy trial rights were violated when the trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to continue the trial over defendant’s objection,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying defense counsel’s post-trial request for continuance to assess concerns of juror misconduct, (3) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present admissible evidence of juror misconduct, and (4) trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay the imposed fines and assessments. Finding no error, abuse of discretion, or ineffective assistance of counsel, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Because defendant’s contentions on appeal do not require a full recitation of the facts, we provide a short summary. Defendant met a woman who lacked housing at a park in Thermalito. Later, the woman went to an orchard and prepared to sleep in the bed of a pickup. Defendant entered the bed of the pickup and attempted to lie down with her. The woman repeatedly asked him to leave, but defendant refused. When the woman left the bed of the pickup to retrieve her cell phone, defendant attacked her and sexually assaulted her. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends his state (statutory and constitutional) and federal (constitutional) speedy trial rights were violated when the trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to continue the trial over defendant’s objection. A The state Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial from the time a felony complaint is filed. (People v. Martinez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 750, 754.) Additionally, “ ‘[t]o implement an accused’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Legislature enacted section 1382.’ ” (Burgos v. Superior Court (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 817, 825.) Section 1382, as relevant to this case, provides that a felony case must be dismissed if it is not brought to trial within 60 days after the defendant’s