People v. Flores CA4/1

Filed 1/30/26 P. v. Flores CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085151

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE385427)

HECTOR FLORES II,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Richard J. Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Joshua Trinh, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2021, a jury convicted Hector Flores II of second degree murder

(Pen. Code,2 § 187) with true findings on firearm and gang enhancement allegations. The court sentenced Flores to 15 years to life for the second degree murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the gun enhancement. Flores appealed the conviction. We vacated the gang enhancement finding and remanded for the prosecution to consider whether to retry the case. The prosecution declined to do so, and the case was set for resentencing. (Flores, supra, D079705.) On remand, the court held a resentencing hearing and again imposed an aggregate term of 40 years to life. The court stated it would “come up with [the updated credits] and give it to [the defendant].” The minute order, however, is silent as to credit for time served and the record does not include an amended abstract of judgment. Flores states that he filed written requests on March 10, 2025, and June 20, 2025 to recalculate his presentence custody credits and correct the record The record does not indicate the court has responded to these requests. Flores contends, and the People concede, that the resentencing court failed to comply with People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, because it did not determine the actual days Flores was in custody between his original