People v. Florez CA1/4

Filed 12/27/23 P. v. Florez CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168067 v. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. ANTOINETTE MORGAN FLOREZ, No. 21CR02342) Defendant and Appellant.

Antoinette Morgan Florez appeals from a judgment entered upon a negotiated disposition of her case in Mendocino County Superior Court. Her appointed appellate counsel has submitted a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we independently review the record. Counsel has advised Florez of her right to submit a supplemental brief and Florez has not done so. Our independent review of the record has disclosed no issues that warrant further briefing. I. BACKGROUND A May 2022 preliminary hearing was held in Florez’s case, at which evidence was presented that on June 25, 2021, she tried to buy a car at a car dealership using another individual’s identification. When the suspicious car sales representative asked her for additional identification, Florez said she would return the next day with it. She asked that the car be held for her and

1

left a down payment of $500. The sales representative noted the license plate of the car in which Florez left and contacted the police. Police found Florez in that car at a traffic stop later that same day and determined she was wanted pursuant to a San Mateo County warrant. They arrested her and read her Miranda1 rights to her. Florez then admitted to leaving a $500 down payment for a car at the dealership using another individual’s identification. According to a testifying police officer, the police also found “a plethora of other IDs, driver’s licenses, debit cards, and credit cards of numerous other individuals inside of [Florez’s] purse and the vehicle.” Later in May 2022, the Mendocino County District Attorney charged Florez in an information with two counts: personal identifying information theft of an individual for an unlawful purpose, in violation of Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (a)2 (count one) and identifying information theft with a prior conviction in violation of section 530.5, subdivision (c)(2) (count two). The information included a sentence enhancement allegation under sections 1170.12 and 667 that Florez had suffered a strike conviction for second degree robbery in 2006 (strike allegation). Florez subsequently moved under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) for the court to strike or dismiss the strike allegation. The court determined, based on case law, that it could only grant the motion if Florez’s case fell “outside the spirit of the three strikes rule.” It found her case did not qualify because of her extensive criminal record since her 2006 strike conviction, which included numerous felony and misdemeanor convictions and time on probation, in jail, and in prison. The