People v. Flores CA4/3

Filed 2/9/15 P. v. Flores CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G048666

v. (Super. Ct. No. 11CF2415)

LORENZO BERNABE FLORES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James A. Stotler, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa Hill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Lise Jacobson and Tami Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Lorenzo Bernabe Flores of conspiracy to commit murder (count 1), attempted murder (counts 2 & 3), carjacking (count 4), second degree robbery (count 5), and street terrorism (count 6). The jury also found true defendant committed: (1) counts 1 through 5 for the benefit of a criminal street gang; (2) counts 1 through 3 as a principal in the commission of (a) a felony committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang in which another principal intentionally discharged a firearm and (b) a gang-related felony in which another principal intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury; and (3) counts 2 and 3 with premeditation and deliberation. The trial court found the prior conviction allegations true and sentenced defendant to a term of 55 years to life. Defendant contends the court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on accomplice testimony in response to the question whether an accomplice must know the perpetrator’s specific criminal purpose. We disagree. Although the opening brief also raised an issue about custody credits, defendant acknowledges the court awarded the requested credits while this appeal was pending, making the issue moot. The judgment is affirmed.