How have the courts treated the testimony of a convicted felon who was convicted of two felons?

Appellant admitted two prior felony convictions in his testimony. The jury could reasonably conclude that the "something" that led to appellant's dislike of peace officers was these prior convictions. "`To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on remarks to the jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. [Citations.] In conducting this inquiry, we "do not lightly infer" that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements.' [Citation.]" (People v. Dykes, supra, 46 Cal.4th at pp. 771-772.) As we have discussed, he fired more than 107 nails at multiple officers over several hours. This supported the suggestion that appellant disliked peace officers. This did not constitute misconduct.