Opinion
F085432
04-24-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID ANTHONY VALLE, Defendant and Appellant.
William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County Super. Ct. No. DF016714A John W. Lua, Judge.
William W. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT [*]
INTRODUCTION
Defendant David Anthony Valle was convicted of possessing a weapon while confined in a penal institution pursuant to Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a) and the trial court found some aggravating factors true and that defendant had several prior strike convictions pursuant to the "Three Strikes" law. Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life. Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a letter stating any grounds on appeal within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant did not file a letter in response. After review of the record, we identify no basis for relief and affirm the judgment.
Hereinafter, all undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
On December 2, 2021, correctional officer Richard Malin was working at the Kern Valley State Prison sweeping in front of defendant's cell. Defendant was an inmate at the prison and the sole occupant of that cell. Defendant brandished what appeared to be an inmate manufactured weapon and said to Malin, "this ain't no pen filler." Malin described seeing a weapon that was five to six inches in length, sharpened on one end, and wrapped in a white cloth on the other end. Malin asked defendant to relinquish the weapon to him and defendant responded, "come and get it." Malin notified his supervisor sergeant Jesus Flores who came over to speak with defendant. Flores then proceeded to escort defendant out of his cell so that the cell could be searched. Defendant was initially noncompliant but eventually agreed to be placed in waist chains and exit his cell.
Per policy, defendant was to be transported to a dry cell, which is a temporary holding cell. Before being placed in the dry cell, defendant was searched using a metal detector which indicated at the waist. In order to discover whether it was the waist chains that were indicating or contraband, protocol called for an unclothed body search to be conducted. Officers could not conduct the search because defendant was being noncompliant. When an inmate does not submit to an unclothed body search, they are placed in a temporary holding cell with constant supervision until the inmate complies. Flores explained that they cannot forcibly subject an inmate to an unclothed body search. As such, defendant was placed in the dry holding cell without conducting the unclothed body search. Before placing defendant in the holding cell, Flores made sure nothing was inside. While defendant was in the holding cell, Flores was able to observe only the top half of defendant. As such, Flores did not have a visual of defendant's feet or shoes.
While defendant was in the holding cell, Malin searched the defendant's assigned cell for about 15 to 20 minutes but did not locate anything illegal. After learning of the negative results from the assigned cell search, Flores ordered defendant to be taken back. The process for returning to the assigned cell is to request an unclothed body search again. Flores asked officer Daniel Nichols to escort defendant back to his assigned cell. Prior to leaving the holding cell, Nichols performed an unclothed body search of defendant while inside the holding cell. Defendant complied by removing his clothing and handing it through the food port for Nichols to search. Nichols's vision was limited as he could not see anything on defendant from the waist down. Nothing was located in the clothing items or from the visual cavity search. After defendant put his clothes back on, Nichols placed him in handcuffs in order to escort him to his assigned cell. Officer Ronnie Hulsey waved a metal detector wand over defendant which alerted to defendant's right shoe. Nichols then asked defendant to kneel at a chair so they could search his shoe. Defendant resisted and pulled forward. Consequently, defendant was brought to the ground, an alarm code was sounded, and additional staff responded. Officer Araceli Jones removed defendant's right shoe and observed a weapon in the shoe. The weapon was cylindrical in form, with one end wrapped in cloth to form a handle and one end sharpened to a point. The object was about five inches in length and one inch in width. The metal portion was about three inches. Flores and Jones opined that this was an inmate-manufactured weapon, which defendant was not allowed to have because it was capable of being used to inflict injury. The weapon was brought to court and admitted into evidence.
The parties stipulated that defendant was currently serving a lawful commitment, which is an element of section 4502, subdivision (a).
Defendant waived his rights and chose to testify on his own behalf. Defendant acknowledged that he was previously convicted of attempted murder, kidnapping to commit a crime, first degree robbery and carjacking on July 15, 2014.
Defendant acknowledged and confirmed that the video evidence depicted him holding an inmate manufactured weapon in his cell showing it to Malin. After asking whether he was allowed to lie, defendant admitted that he had the weapon on him when he was placed in the dry cell. Defendant said he told the officers he did not have the weapon on him but admitted that he hid the weapon at his waist when he was escorted to the dry cell. Defendant said he did not hand the weapon over for his own safety.
Defendant knew there was a blind spot in the dry cell. When he was in the dry cell, he placed his weapon with paperwork in the blind spot while the strip search was conducted. Once defendant put his clothes back on, he put the weapon in his shoe while in the blind spot. Defendant admitted to lying to the officers about not having the weapon. He lied because he was brought back to the dry cell illegally, was bleeding and afraid of his death.
Defendant knew he was not supposed to have a weapon on him in prison but stated "certain aspects of survival" are necessary in a prison setting and "[s]urvival and necessity dictates sometimes unlawfulness." Defendant explained that he had not been able to use the 602 complaint procedure at the time and used the weapon as a means to get the attention he needed to address his concerns.
Defendant stated that after the incident "[i]t snowballed" and he began being able to file the 602s. Defendant had filed over 32 complaints against officials at the Kern Valley State Prison. Defendant said he filed complaints about "poisoning, torture, abuse, criminal negligence, slander, defamation, [and an] outright attempt on [defendant's] life." Defendant described numerous health issues he attributed to his claims, including hair loss and rashes. He said his concerns were addressed but not corrected. Defendant admitted he was seen by medical staff but was still having the same symptoms even though he was no longer at Kern Valley State Prison.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Defendant was charged with willfully and unlawfully possessing a weapon while confined in a penal institution (§ 4502, subd. (a)). Aggravating circumstances were alleged, as well as nine prior strike convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)).
On May 31, 2022, criminal proceedings were suspended and an evaluation ordered for the purpose of determining whether defendant was competent to stand trial pursuant to section 1368. On July 12, 2022, the trial court held a competency hearing for defendant. The court had received and reviewed the evaluation report from Dr. Musacco who concluded the defendant was competent to stand trial. Defense counsel and the prosecution submitted on the evaluator's report. The court found defendant competent to stand trial and reinstated the criminal proceedings.
Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of felony unlawful possession of a weapon in a penal institution in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true defendant's nine prior convictions for purposes of section 667, subdivision (e). The court found true the aggravating factors that defendant was armed or used a weapon (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(2)) and that his prior convictions were numerous (rule 4.421(b)(2)). The court found not true that defendant's convictions were increasing in seriousness (rule 4.421(b)(2)) and not true that defendant had violated probation or parole (rule 4.421(b)(5)). Defendant was sentenced to 25 years to life, which was imposed fully consecutive to the sentence he was currently serving in state prison under Los Angeles case No. PA075131-01.
Hereinafter, all undesignated rules are to the California Rules of Court.
DISCUSSION
I. Wende Review
As noted above, defendant's appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, asserting he could not identify any arguable issues in this case. After defendant's appellate counsel filed his Wende brief, we invited defendant by letter dated December 29, 2023, to inform this court of any issues he wished addressed. Defendant did not file a letter in response.
After a thorough review of the record, we agree with defendant's appellate counsel there are no arguable issues in this case. There is nothing in the record to suggest any error occurred.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
[*] Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Pena, J.