People v. Flores CA1/5

Filed 11/15/13 P. v. Flores CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A138552 v. DANIEL V. FLORES, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR-589767) Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel V. Flores appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence that was imposed after he entered a no contest plea to a robbery charge and admitted related allegations. His attorney has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (see Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738), in order to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY An information filed in September 2011 charged Flores and two codefendants, Steven Chavez and Jesse Afoa, with two counts of robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 As to each offense, it was alleged that Flores acted in concert with his codefendants and entered a domestic structure within the meaning of section 213, subdivision (a)(1)(A). It was further alleged that a principal was armed with a firearm during the commission of the offenses. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Flores was later charged with felony failure to appear (case No. SCR-628993).

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

A. No Contest Plea and Admissions On February 13, 2013, Flores signed a “Defendant’s Waiver of Constitutional Rights Prior to Entry of Guilty or No Contest Plea.” In this written plea agreement, Flores stated that he was pleading no contest to robbery of an inhabited dwelling with two or more accomplices (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)) and admitting the enhancement allegation under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). He further represented that he understood and waived specified constitutional rights, he understood his maximum punishment would be 10 years in state prison, and he understood other specified consequences of his plea. In addition, Flores expressed his understanding that there was no agreement as to what the specific term of sentence would be, he could be sentenced up to the 10-year maximum, but the “court has indicated low term of [three years] plus one year for firearm enhancement” on the charges. At the plea hearing on February 13, 2013, Flores was present and represented by counsel. After being advised of his constitutional rights and acknowledging that he understood and waived those rights, Flores entered a plea of no contest to one count of robbery (§ 211), admitted the gun enhancement allegation (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted that his crime involved voluntarily acting in concert with others and entering a residential structure (§ 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). The court found the plea was made knowingly and intelligently, and defense counsel confirmed there was a factual basis for the plea. As to case No. SCR-628993, Flores pled no contest to willfully evading the process of the court for failing to appear. (§ 1320.5.) The prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining robbery count, and Flores was promised he would receive a sentence of four years eight months (three years for the robbery, one year for the firearm enhancement, and eight months for the failure to appear) or he would be entitled to withdraw his plea. B. Presentence Report’s Factual Statement The felony presentence report summarized the facts relevant to Flores’s offenses based on preliminary hearing transcripts and statements from the victims as recorded in the police report.