People v. Sanchez-Flores CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 9/16/26 P. v. Sanchez-Flores CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B347082 (Super. Ct. No. 24F-04644 Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

JUAN SANCHEZ-FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Juan Sanchez-Flores pleaded guilty to one count of forcible rape (Pen. Code,1 § 261, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted he inflicted great bodily injury, pregnancy, on the victim (§§ 667.61, 12022.7). The court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison. It dismissed the remaining count of incest (§ 285) pursuant to the terms of the plea deal. Appellant appealed and received a certificate of probable cause from the trial court. We appointed counsel. After 1 All further statutory designations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. reviewing the record, counsel filed an opening brief relying on People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Appellant filed a supplemental brief. We will affirm. FACTS We source the facts from the probation report that served as the factual basis of appellant’s guilty plea. Appellant raped and impregnated his 16-year-old daughter in 2019. She gave birth to the child. She reported the crime to law enforcement in 2024. Prosecutors charged appellant with forcible rape and incest after investigators confirmed he was the child’s father. He admitted having sex with his daughter but blamed her for the crime, insisting she had threatened to “put him in jail” if he did not accept her advances. DISCUSSION Appellant contends in his supplemental brief that: (1) defense counsel gave him “false information” about the length of time he would serve under the plea deal; (2) his defense counsel instructed him not to speak to probation; (3) he “wasn’t heard” during the plea agreement proceedings; and (4) his “dialect at the time was a total barrier.” We construe the first two contentions as claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant does not appear to have sought habeas corpus relief. In addition, he does not cite the record or include a summary of facts as required rule 8.397 of by the California Rules of Court. “ ‘ “[I]f the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged[,] . . . unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,” the claim on appeal must be rejected.’ ”

2 (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266.) As such, we decline to review the substance of these allegations. The third and fourth contentions are belied by the record. A certified Mixteco Alto language translator attended the plea hearing and sentencing. Defense counsel recited the terms of the plea in open court, as follows: “[Appellant] shall be sentenced to 25 years to life, which is the only available sentence for the Court to impose. . . . Count Two will be dismissed pending the continued validity of the plea. He understands this is a violent crime. He also has been advised that he will be deported upon completion of his term.” The prosecutor added the plea would include restitution and a criminal protective order. The trial court then asked appellant directly: “Mr. Sanchez-Flores, did you hear what both your attorney and the district attorney said?” Appellant responded, “Yes.” Appellant waived his right to a jury trial and his attendant rights to confront witnesses and obtain documentary evidence. The trial court then repeated the sentence: “According to the negotiated plea agreement in this case, you will be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, and after you’ve served your prison term, you’ll then be on parole for life.” It stated he could be committed to a secured medical facility indefinitely if determined to be a sexually violent predator after serving his sentence. When asked if he understood, appellant responded, “Yes.” The court asked, “Have any promises been made to you other than what we have specifically discussed here in open court?” He responded, “No.” Lastly, the court asked, “Do you need any additional time to speak with your attorney?” Appellant responded, “No, that’s fine.” Defense counsel then confirmed he 3 “discussed with [appellant] his “rights, defenses, and the possible consequence of the plea and admissions.” At sentencing, the parties confirmed they received the probation officer’s presentencing report. This report described the negotiated disposition. Defense counsel requested the trial court deviate in minor respects from the report’s recommendations. The prosecutor agreed. The court recited the crime and enhancement to which appellant pleaded guilty and imposed the negotiated term of imprisonment, i.e., 25 years to life in prison, with 127 days of actual custody credit and life probation upon release. Appellant, through counsel, told the court he did not wish to appear at the restitution status hearing. The court advised him of the right to appeal and his parole obligations. It then stated, “Again, this is a life sentence with an indeterminant – 25 to life, which is an indeterminant term, but there may be possibility of parole long in the future. Is that correct?” Defense counsel answered, “Yes.” DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J. BALTODANO, J.

4 Michael S. Frye, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo ______________________________ Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.