People v. Flores CA5

Filed 11/3/25 P. v. Flores CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088451 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18CR-03528D) v.

JOAQUIN FLORES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Stephanie L. Jamieson, Judge. Theresa Osterman Stevenson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Amanda D. Cary, Ian P. Whitney, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2019, a jury found appellant Joaquin Flores guilty of two felonies: (1) premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a);1 count 1) and (2) assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 2). The jury found true gang enhancement allegations. Appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for the attempted murder, and the sentence for the assault was stayed.2 In 2023, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, issued an unpublished opinion in which it vacated appellant’s gang enhancements. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. (People v. Flores (Feb. 1, 2023, B322682) [nonpub. opn.].) Following remand, the prosecution declined to retry the gang enhancement allegations. Appellant was resentenced in 2024. He received an indeterminate term of seven years to life for attempted murder, and the sentence for the assault was again stayed. When appellant was resentenced in 2024, the trial court did not update his actual custody credit. We agree with the parties that this was error. We remand this matter for the trial court to calculate and update appellant’s actual custody credit. BACKGROUND On June 1, 2018, appellant worked with other Sureño gang members to attack a fellow Sureño gang member, Luis Prado, who was not in good standing with the gang. The attempted murder occurred inside the Merced County jail. Appellant provided

1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2 Appellant was also sentenced in other criminal cases which are irrelevant to this appeal. In September 2023, appellant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. The superior court denied the petition without appointing counsel to represent appellant. In March 2025, this court issued an unpublished opinion in which we held that the record of conviction at the prima facie stage did not conclusively establish that appellant was ineligible for resentencing relief. We reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. (People v. Flores (Mar. 19, 2025, F087300) [nonpub. opn.].)