People v. Flores CA2/6

Filed 1/16/24 P. v. Flores CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No.B321959 (Super. Ct. No. 2020035528) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

RALPH FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Ralph Flores appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (e))1 and making criminal threats (§ 422). The trial court sentenced him to two years in state prison. Before entering his plea, Flores moved to be diverted, which the court denied. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Flores’s motion for a developmental disability diversion. (§ 1001.21.) We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS Flores engaged in a long pattern of stalking, harassing, and threatening J.D. He described in “vivid detail” the way “he wants to sexually assault” her and kill her. His long pattern of harassment “shifted to more violent threats.” He developed a “specific and imminent timeline for murdering [J.D.] and her husband.” His threats included sending photographs of large kitchen knives and “fantasizing” about the death of J.D. and her husband. The People filed a felony complaint alleging that Flores committed the offenses of stalking, making criminal threats, and placing the victim “in reasonable fear for her safety and the safety of her immediate family.” Flores filed a motion that he be diverted because he had a developmental disability “[p]ursuant to Penal Code Section 1001.20 et seq.” The trial court referred the matter to the probation department for a report on diversion. The Tri-Counties Regional Center (Regional Center) filed a proposed diversion plan for Flores. The probation department filed a report recommending that diversion be denied. It said the Regional Center’s diversion plan was not adequate because it did not provide protection for the victim and Flores had “anger management issues.” The People filed a report recommending against diversion and a declaration from a deputy district attorney stating facts about Flores’s current danger to J.D. and her husband. At two different hearings on diversion, a representative of the Regional Center told the trial court that the Regional Center was withdrawing its support for diversion. The Regional Center