People v. Valenti

Decision Date14 January 2016
Docket NumberB255727
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Renoir Vincent VALENTI, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard D. Miggins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and J. Michael Lehmann, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LAVIN, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Renoir Vincent Valenti was convicted of continuous sexual abuse, lewd act on a child, child molestation, forgery, and violating a court order—all relating to his sexual abuse of 15 children over nearly 30 years. The jury found multiple-victim and substantial-sexual-conduct allegations true.

On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence his continuous sexual abuse of Denzel lasted at least three months or that he touched Jeremy or Bradley with lewd intent; that we must reverse his six convictions for annoying or molesting a child because there is insufficient evidence of objectively disturbing or offensive conduct, the court erred by instructing the jury the People did not have to prove sexual motive, and the instruction for those offenses misstated the law; and that the court erred by failing to instruct the emotional support person not to influence the witnesses. Defendant also contends his conviction for lewd act on Alexis is unauthorized; his consecutive one-strike sentences are unauthorized and an abuse of discretion; and the noneconomic restitution awards are unauthorized and unconstitutional.

We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions. We reverse the convictions for counts 1, 5, and 10 for insufficient evidence, and count 14 for violating the Ex Post Facto Clause; those counts may not be retried. We reverse the convictions for counts 6 through 9 for failure to instruct on an element of the offense, and remand for retrial. We vacate the indeterminate sentences imposed for counts 2 and 12, and remand for resentencing without application of the One Strike Law. We reverse the noneconomic restitution awards for all counts, and remand with directions to conduct a restitution hearing for counts 15, 23, and 24 only. We direct the court, upon resentencing, to recalculate defendant's custody credit to reflect no more than 15 percent local conduct credit. In all other respects, we affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by fourth amended information with 20 counts related to the sexual abuse of children who lived in his neighborhood and played on the soccer teams he coached. The information charged him with five counts of continuous sexual abuse, a felony (Pen. Code,1 § 288.5 ; counts 1 [Denzel M.], 2 [Garrett M.], 12 [Cory D.], 13 [Ammon C.], and 20 [Thomas C.] ); three counts of lewd act on a child younger than 14, a felony (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 15 [Jeremy S.], 23 [Justin B.], and 24 [Bradley T.] ); one count of lewd act upon a 14– or 15–year–old child by a person more than 10 years older, a felony (§ 288, subd. (c)(1); count 14 [Alexis K.] ); six counts of annoying or molesting a child, a misdemeanor (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1); counts 5 [Ricardo S.], 6 [Larry S.], 7 [Hunter S.], 8 [Wyatt S.], 9 [Richard S.], and 10 [David S.] ); four counts of recording a false or forged instrument, a felony (§ 115, subd. (a); counts 16–19); and one count of violating a court order, a misdemeanor (§ 166, subd. (a)(4); count 21).2

As to the charges of continuous sexual abuse (§ 288.5 ; counts 1–2, 12–13, and 20), the information alleged the crimes involved substantial sexual conduct with a child younger than 14 (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) and defendant committed the offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds.(b), (c), (e)(4)). As to the charges of lewd act on a child (§ 288, subds.(a), (c); counts 14–15, 23–24), the information alleged defendant committed the offense against more than one victim (§ 667.61, subds.(b), (c), (e)(4)).3

Defendant pled not guilty and denied the allegations. A jury found defendant guilty of all remaining counts, and found all allegations true.

The court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 10 years and eight months, and a consecutive, indeterminate term of 120 years to life. For the determinate sentence, the court selected count 14 (§ 288, subd. (c)(1)) as the base term, and imposed the upper term of three years.4 The court imposed consecutive one-year terms for counts 5 through 10 (§ 647.6, subd. (a)(1)) and 21 (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)), for a total of seven years. The court imposed eight months—one-third the middle term of two years—for count 16 (§ 115, subd. (a)), to run consecutive, and the middle term of two years for counts 17, 18, and 19 (§ 115, subd. (a)), to run concurrent with the principal term. For the indeterminate sentence, the court imposed eight consecutive terms of 15 years to life for counts 1, 2, 12, 13, and 20 (§ 288.5 ) and counts 15, 23, and 24 (§ 288, subd. (a)) under the One Strike Law (§ 667.61, subds. (c), (i)).

Defendant was ordered to pay fines and assessments totaling $36,490, and restitution for noneconomic damages (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(F)) totaling $450,000. Defendant received 1,241 days pretrial custody credit—621 days actual credit and 620 days local conduct credit.

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1983, eight-year-old James K. met defendant at the Santa Monica Pier. James liked to break dance with his friends in Santa Monica and Venice while his father fished nearby. James approached defendant, who was photographing the break dancers, and asked defendant to take pictures of James and his friends, who were hoping to book a commercial. Defendant and James began to spend time together and soon, James's 10–year–old sister, Alexis, asked to come along.

By 1986, defendant and Alexis had started dating. Alexis was 13 years old; defendant was 24. They married the following year, on August 11, 1987. In 1991, Alexis gave birth to the couple's first child, Damien. In 1993, the young family moved to Palmdale. Defendant told people his name was Renoir Vincent Valenti,5 and that he was a soccer coach from England. In early 1994, Alexis gave birth to the couple's second child, Alex.

In 1995, defendant's sons introduced him to Garrett, a five-year-old boy who lived in the same apartment complex as the Valenti family. Defendant soon started molesting Garrett. The abuse, which continued for nearly a decade, ultimately involved thousands of episodes of molestation, including repeated oral copulation, masturbation, and sodomy.

The same year, defendant began to coach boys' soccer in Lancaster. He would go on to coach Lancaster soccer from 1995 until 2006—primarily coaching teams of boys younger than 10 or 12 years old.

Meanwhile, Alexis had grown unhappy in her marriage to defendant and jealous of the time he spent with other people's children. They separated on March 30, 1996; a judgment of dissolution was entered on January 6, 1997. Despite the divorce, Alexis and defendant continued to live together, and in April 1998, they moved to the nearby Pavilion Apartments. Justin and Gary Q. lived in the complex.

In 1998, defendant's apartment was "the place to be" for neighborhood boys like Justin, Garrett, and Gary. He had stocked it with big screen televisions, video games, food, and candy. Defendant also took Justin and his friends to the desert to shoot BB guns. On the way, the boys took turns sitting on defendant's lap to steer the car. When Justin sat in his lap, defendant usually became aroused, and Justin felt him get an erection. Sometimes, defendant also rubbed Justin's inner thigh. On June 17, 1998, Justin's mother reported defendant to the police for child molestation. Defendant was arrested on June 28, 1998, but the case was dismissed for insufficient evidence.

By 2001, defendant and Alexis had moved from Palmdale to an apartment in Lancaster. That year, defendant met Cory. Like Garrett, whose abuse continued during this period, Cory often spent the night at defendant's home. Defendant frequently hugged Cory, kissed him on the forehead and lips, and inserted his tongue into Cory's mouth. One evening, defendant brought Cory to his bedroom and fondled his penis.

In 2001 or 2002, Alexis finally moved out, leaving Damien with his father, defendant. On January 31, 2003, Damien reached out to the Sheriff's Department. He told authorities defendant had been beating and molesting him for five years, along with Garrett, Cory, and a boy named David. Sergeant Anna Fernandez investigated the allegations, but no charges were ever filed. Damien later recanted.

Before long, defendant had moved on to Ammon. Ammon met defendant through his older brother, a friend of Damien's and a member of the soccer team defendant coached. Soon, Ammon joined the soccer team too. By 2004, eight-year-old Ammon had started sleeping over at defendant's house nearly every weekend—and defendant molested him on nearly every visit. During those visits, defendant touched Ammon's penis, put his mouth on Ammon's penis, and masturbated Ammon and himself.

Ammon met Thomas in the fall of 2005, when they sat together in fourth grade. In early 2006, defendant moved west to Quartz Hill. Sometime that winter or spring, Ammon introduced Thomas to defendant. Thomas was nine years old. Thomas went to defendant's house two or three times each week until 2007, when he was scheduled to start sixth grade. Every time Thomas visited defendant, defendant sat Thomas on his lap, reached his hand into Thomas's pants, and stroked his penis and buttocks. Defendant put his fingers around Thomas's anus and kissed his neck. The abuse continued as long as Thomas spent time at defendant's house.

In the summer of 2007, Thomas failed fifth grade, and Ammon moved to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
176 cases
  • Amezcua v. Lizarraga
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 29 Mayo 2019
    ...purpose, the jury can look to surrounding circumstances and rely on them to draw inferences about his intent." People v. Valenti, 243 Cal. App. 4th 1140, 1160 (Cal. App. 2016). Relevant factors can include a defendant's "extrajudicial statements, other acts of lewd conduct admitted or charg......
  • People v. Clotfelter
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 Junio 2021
    ...conduct has been met." ( Lopez, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 291, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 195, 965 P.2d 713 ; see People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1162-1163, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ( Valenti ), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in People v. Brooks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 932, 945,......
  • Delacruz v. Ndoh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 19 Agosto 2019
    ...purpose, the jury can look to surrounding circumstances and rely on them to draw inferences about his intent." People v. Valenti, 243 Cal. App. 4th 1140, 1160 (Cal. App. 2016). Relevant factors can include a defendant's "extrajudicial statements, other acts of lewd conduct admitted or charg......
  • People v. Chhoun
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 11 Febrero 2021
    ...who will also be a witness, and the Courts of Appeal have reached different conclusions. (Compare People v. Valenti (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1169–1171, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ( Valenti ) with People v. Spence (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 478, 513, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 374 ( Spence ).) We need not dec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT