People v. Flores CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067067 · 2015-09-04 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN319699
Trial judge: Blaine K. Bowman
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Patricia D. Benke (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., McINTYRE

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:09Z · confidence low

The trial court convicted Christopher Flores of attempted premeditated murder and related enhancements, sentencing him to 30 years to life plus a consecutive 20-year term. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to *Wende* and *Anders*, finding no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Independent review of the record for error (Wende/Anders review) “After independently reviewing the record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court applied the correct standard for appointed counsel who files a Wende brief, conducting an independent review of the record to ensure no constitutional or fundamental error was overlooked. The court correctly identified that the trial judge did not participate in the appeal, addressing the appellant's bias concern.
Failure to bifurcate trial of substantive offenses and gang enhancements “The issues identified by counsel are: 1) the trial court's failure to bifurcate the trial of the substantive offenses and the gang enhancements; ... Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court dismissed this issue as lacking arguable merit without detailed analysis, which is consistent with the Wende review standard where counsel has not developed an argument. The court relied on its independent review to find no error.
Admission of gang-related evidence “The issues identified by counsel are: ... 2) the admission of gang-related evidence; ... Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court found no arguable merit in the challenge to the admission of gang evidence. While the opinion does not detail the specific evidentiary rules applied, the conclusion is supported by the court's independent review of the record.
Sufficiency of evidence of attempted premeditated murder “The issues identified by counsel are: ... 3) the sufficiency of the evidence of attempted premeditated murder; ... Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The factual background provided (shooting at a fleeing victim with a revolver) supports a finding of premeditation and attempt, making the court's conclusion reasonable.
Denial of motion for new trial “The issues identified by counsel are: ... 3) denial of Flores's motion for new trial; ... Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court found no arguable merit in the challenge to the denial of the motion for new trial. This is a discretionary ruling, and the court's independent review found no abuse.
Denial of motion to strike prior juvenile strike adjudication “The issues identified by counsel are: ... 4) denial of Flores's motion to strike his prior juvenile strike adjudication; ... Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court found no arguable merit in the challenge to the use of the juvenile strike. The opinion does not specify the legal basis for the denial, but the court's independent review supports the affirmation.
Ordering restitution for hotel expenses “The issues identified by counsel are: ... 5) ordering restitution for hotel expenses Cervantes incurred following the shooting. Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court found no arguable merit in the challenge to the restitution order. Restitution for direct losses, including relocation costs, is generally permissible, and the court's review found no error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appointed appellate counsel must file a brief identifying potential issues and invite the court to review the record if no arguable issues are found.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel must file a brief and the court must independently review the record to ensure no constitutional or fundamental error is overlooked.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it follows the required Wende/Anders protocol for appointed counsel. However, it is 'sound with gaps' because it dismisses multiple specific legal issues (bifurcation, evidence, sufficiency, etc.) with a blanket statement of 'no arguable merit' without providing the specific legal reasoning or authorities that would allow for meaningful review of those discrete claims.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

A San Diego jury convicted Christopher Flores of attempted premeditated murder, assault with a firearm, and misdemeanor resisting arrest, with gun-use and gang enhancements found true; the trial court found a prior strike and sentenced him to 30 years to life plus a consecutive 20-year gun-use term, staying the remaining terms. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief identifying six potential issues, Flores filed a supplemental brief asserting the trial judge would decide his appeal, and the Court of Appeal, after independent review under Wende and Anders, found no arguable issue and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Judgment of conviction and sentence as a whole (independent Wende/Anders review of the record) “A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief, the defendant was given and used the opportunity to file a supplemental brief, the court addressed his contention, and it stated it independently reviewed the record. Nothing in the opinion suggests the procedure was misapplied.
Denial of bifurcation of the gang enhancements from trial of the substantive offenses “1) the trial court's failure to bifurcate the trial of the substantive offenses and the gang enhancements”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion gives no analysis of this issue beyond declaring it lacks arguable merit; without the underlying facts or the trial court's reasoning, the ruling cannot be independently evaluated from the opinion alone.
Admission of gang-related evidence “2) the admission of gang-related evidence”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the evidence admitted or any Evidence Code section 352 analysis; the result is plausible given the charged gang enhancement, but the opinion supplies no basis to confirm it.
Sufficiency of the evidence of attempted premeditated murder “Flores confronted Cervantes in front of Cervantes's grandparents' trailer, pulled out a chrome revolver, and as Cervantes attempted to flee, fired the revolver at Cervantes.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The facts the opinion recites—a gang member confronting a cooperating witness who had testified against a fellow gang member, drawing a revolver, and firing at him as he fled—supply motive, planning, and intent to kill sufficient to support premeditation under the substantial-evidence standard.
Denial of motion for new trial “3) denial of Flores's motion for new trial”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state the grounds of the new trial motion or the trial court's reasons for denying it, so there is no basis in the opinion to assess the ruling.
Denial of motion to strike prior juvenile strike adjudication (Romero motion) “4) denial of Flores's motion to strike his prior juvenile strike adjudication”	unclear	correct	unsure Denial of a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, but the opinion gives no facts about the prior adjudication or the court's reasoning, so the ruling cannot be evaluated from the opinion.
Victim restitution order for hotel expenses incurred by Cervantes after the shooting “5) ordering restitution for hotel expenses Cervantes incurred following the shooting”	unclear	correct	unsure Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(3) permits restitution for economic losses including relocation expenses, so an award for a victim's post-shooting hotel costs is plausibly authorized, but the opinion provides no facts about the award or its basis.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel files a brief raising no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous may so advise the court, and the court must then examine the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous before affirming.
missed: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — In a Wende appeal where the defendant files a supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal's opinion must address the contentions the defendant raises and explain why they fail; the court here did address Flores's contention in substance but did not cite Kelly.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly followed the Wende/Anders procedure, independently reviewed the record, and responded to the defendant's sole supplemental contention (that the trial judge would decide his appeal) by explaining it was mistaken, which satisfies the substance of People v. Kelly even without citing it. The opinion provides no reasoning on the six issues counsel flagged, which is permissible in a Wende disposition but leaves the reader unable to verify those conclusions from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 9/4/15 P. v. Flores CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D067067

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN319699)

CHRISTOPHER FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K.

Bowman, Judge. Affirmed.

Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief presenting no argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We gave defendant and appellant Christopher Flores an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so.

After independently reviewing the record for error, as required by Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

Flores was charged with and convicted, by a jury, of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, 189); the jury also found true gun use and criminal street gang enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial judge found Flores had suffered a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and sentenced him to a term of 30 years to life on the attempted premeditated murder conviction and a consecutive 20-year term on the gun use enhancement. Although Flores was also convicted of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), sentence on that crime, and the remaining street gang and gun use enhancements, was imposed and stayed; with respect to Flores's additional conviction of resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor, his sentence was deemed served.

The judgment of conviction grew out of Flores's attempt to kill a former gang member, Louis Cervantes. In January 2013, Cervantes was shot and seriously injured by a third gang member, and testified against his assailant. Following his testimony, Cervantes was relocated to another community.

Later, in May 2013, after Cervantes had violated the terms of his relocation agreement with prosecutors and returned to his old neighborhood, Flores confronted 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Cervantes in front of Cervantes's grandparents' trailer, pulled out a chrome revolver, and as Cervantes attempted to flee, fired the revolver at Cervantes. The shot missed Cervantes but hit a mirror on the truck near where Cervantes was attempting to hide.

Cervantes was able to identify Flores in a photo array, along with another gang member who had threatened him earlier in the evening.

As we have indicated, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel has presented no argument for reversal and has invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Nonetheless, counsel has identified a number of potential issues; we find that none of them have merit.2 As we have also indicated, we have given Flores leave to file a supplemental brief and he has done so. His principal concern is his belief that the trial judge who presided over his trial will determine his appeal and be biased against him; his belief is, of course, mistaken and may grow out of reference to the trial judge in the caption of the brief counsel filed on his behalf. In any event, his appeal has been reviewed by a panel of justices of the Court of Appeal and his trial judge has not participated in any manner in disposition of his appeal.

2 The issues identified by counsel are: 1) the trial court's failure to bifurcate the trial of the substantive offenses and the gang enhancements; 2) the admission of gang-related evidence; 3) the sufficiency of the evidence of attempted premeditated murder; 3) denial of Flores's motion for new trial; 4) denial of Flores's motion to strike his prior juvenile strike adjudication; 5) ordering restitution for hotel expenses Cervantes incurred following the shooting. Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has arguable merit. 3 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Flores has been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

McINTYRE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12