People v. Flores CA4/1 ( 2016 )

Filed 8/17/16 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D068359
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS275293)
DANIEL ROBERTO FLORES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary G.
Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General,
Quisteen S. Shum and Peter Quon, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
Daniel Roberto Flores entered a guilty plea to one count of attempted murder in
which he slit the victim's throat with a straight razor. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187.) Flores
admitted he used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1).) The allegation of the commission of great bodily injury was dismissed as
part of the plea agreement. The court sentenced Flores to a 10-year term consisting of a
nine-year upper term for the offense plus one year for the weapon.
Flores appeals challenging only his sentence. Flores contends the court abused its
discretion in selecting the upper term. Flores recognizes trial counsel did not object to
the trial court's statement of reasons for selecting the upper term and that such failure
amounts to a forfeiture of the issue on appeal. Predictably, appellate counsel contends
the trial court's reasons were not supported by the record and thus trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance. Based on our review of the record we will find the trial court acted
well within its discretion in selecting the upper term. The trial court did err in using the
weapon use as an aggravating factor, since it served as the basis of the section
12022, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement. We conclude, however, the error was harmless
given the number of otherwise valid factors in aggravation. Finally, we will find Flores
has not met his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, we
will affirm the judgment and sentence.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Since this appeal arises from a guilty plea we will provide only a brief summary of
facts taken from the probation officer's report.
In the afternoon of October 13, 2014, Flores was working as a barber. He was
providing a haircut and beard trimming to the victim in this case. Suddenly, and without
warning, Flores sliced the victim's throat with a straight razor.
When Flores was apprehended, he was asked why he cut the victim's throat.
Flores said: "For being dumb. What the hell, judging me and disrespecting me. I don't
like being played a fool. Sorry Tim [the victim]."
DISCUSSION
Flores challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court. He contends the court
erred in imposing the upper term for the offense instead of the middle term. Essentially,
Flores argues the trial court failed to treat Flores's mental condition as a factor in
mitigation of sentence. He further argues the court erred in its selection and weighing of
the factors in aggravation. The defense did not object to the trial court's sentencing
decision or any of the reasons on which it was based.
A. Background
The parties filed statements in mitigation and aggravation in the trial court. The
defense material contained statements from two mental health experts. One was from a
doctor appointed to evaluate Flores for competency to stand trial. The second was a
doctor retained by the defense to write a report for sentencing. The trial court read and
considered all of the submissions and the probation officer's report.
3
In making its sentencing decision, the trial court found the defendant's lack of
criminal record and early admission of guilt to be factors in mitigation. The court,
however, did not find the mental health reports presented any evidence mitigating the
crime. The court acknowledged Flores had mental issues, but did not find his mental
condition to be a mitigating factor.
The court found aggravating factors to include the infliction of great bodily injury
on the victim, that the victim was particularly vulnerable, that Flores fled without
attempting to help the victim, and that Flores is a danger to society. Flores does not
challenge the validity of the listed factors in aggravation. The court did, however,
improperly use the fact the defendant was armed with a weapon as a factor in
aggravation. Flores contends, and the People properly concede, the court could not use
the weapon as an aggravating factor since the court imposed an additional term of one
year for the weapon enhancement. Although the People concede the error with regard to
the use of the weapon, they contend the error was harmless in light of the remaining,
valid factors in aggravation.
The People have briefly commented on the failure to object to the trial judge's
sentencing choices. Ordinarily one cannot raise an alleged error in the selection of a
sentence on appeal without first making a timely objection in the trial court. (People v.
Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 348-353.) However, forfeiture was not listed by the People as
a basis for affirming the sentence and was only briefly referenced. We find it
unnecessary to address the forfeiture issue further and will proceed to address the merits
of the appeal.
4
B. Legal Principles
A trial court has broad discretionary powers in the sentencing process. The court's
choices of aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the qualitative weighing of such
factors is a matter within the trial court's discretion. (People v. Avalos (1996) 47
Cal.App.4th 1569, 1582.) We review the trial court's sentencing choices under the abuse
of discretion standard. Under that standard we will not overturn a trial court's sentencing
choice absent a showing of clear legal error or a manifest abuse of discretion. We may
not substitute our evaluation of the sentencing choices for that of the trial court. (People
v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977-978.)
The trial court has the authority to determine what are mitigating and aggravating
factors and to determine the weight to be given to them. (People v. Avalos, supra, 47
Cal.App.4th at pp. 1582-1583.) A single, valid factor in aggravation is sufficient to
support an upper term sentence. (People v. Castellano (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 608, 615.)
C. Analysis
At the sentencing hearing the trial judge explained his views on the psychiatric
evaluations offered in mitigation of the sentence. After reviewing all of the mental health
reports the court found they did not present evidence which mitigated the defendant's
culpability in this case. The court said in part:
"The Court: When I look at everything that has been supplied to the
Court in the way of mitigants [sic], I find two: no prior record and
early acknowledgment of wrongdoing in the criminal process.
"I disagree, and the reason why I don't agree with probation and
defense that says that the defendant was suffering from a mental
condition that significantly reduced his culpability of the crime. I
5
cannot find that as a circumstance in mitigation. And the reason
being, I read Dr. Naimark's report and I read Dr. Carroll's report.
Everybody says that, yes, there are some mental illness or hints of
mental illness in Mr. Flores, but nobody, no doctor or Mr. Flores,
indicates that the mental illness is a cause for this offense.
"He was suffering from no auditory or visual hallucinations. He
never said anything about how he was afraid Mr. Vaughn was going
to attack him, that there was any other reason to be paranoid or
afraid to act out in some self-defense issue when he did this. There
is nothing to indicate at all that the reason for this was due to any of
his mental illnesses that the doctors have looked at.
"And so I cannot find that as a statement in mitigation because there
is no support for it in the information that I have been given and read
and considered for today."
The court also stated that it meticulously examined the mental health reports
concerning appellant and found nothing about appellant's schizophrenia being the cause
of or contributing to his attack upon the victim:
"The Court: I looked -- I looked in the psychological reports. I
looked to see if there was any information that could connect the
mental illness to this crime, and I have -- there's just nothing there. I
just don't see it."
The record supports the trial judge's analysis. Neither of the doctor's reports explained
how any mental impairment Flores suffered impacted the commission of the crime. The
first report was for the purposes of determining competency to stand trial. That doctor
observed that Flores could not explain why he attacked the victim "other than for [Flores]
to infer mental health decompensation at the time."
The probation officer, however, apparently believed that the mental health issues
experienced by Flores impacted his culpability. The probation officer did not have any
information that Flores was experiencing a psychotic episode at the time of the offense,
6
but surmised he had done so because Flores had experienced such episodes in the past.
The trial court did not accept the probation officer's opinion as to the mitigating nature of
the mental health issues.
The remaining doctor analyzed the defendant's background and mental health
history. The doctor discussed whether the defendant was amenable to treatment, if he
remained drug and alcohol free. That doctor did not offer an opinion that the defendant's
mental condition reduced his culpability for the current offense.
It is not our task to reweigh the factors in aggravation and mitigation, that is the
province of the trial court. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373-374.)
Instead, we are limited to determining whether the sentencing decision is irrational or
arbitrary. (Id. at pp. 376-377.)
It is possible that different judges might have weighed the mitigating nature of the
mental health evidence differently. That reality, however, only illustrates the
discretionary nature of the sentencing process in this case. We cannot say the trial court
erred in its weighing and evaluation of the material offered in mitigation.
Turning then to the factors in aggravation, the only factor disputed by Flores is the
trial court's reliance on the use of a weapon. As the People correctly concede, the court
could not use the fact of weapon use as a factor in aggravation and still impose the one-
year enhancement. (People v. Forster (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1746, 1758.) Recognizing
the trial court erred, the question presented is whether the error requires resentencing.
We conclude it does not.
7
Here there are four factors in aggravation found by the court, including the
infliction of great bodily injury, which are not disputed. As we have noted, a single, valid
factor in aggravation can support an upper term sentence. (People v. Castellano, supra,
140 Cal.App.3d at p. 615.) Given the comments of the trial judge, the serious nature of
the offense and the grievous harm inflicted on the victim, we are satisfied it is not
reasonably probable that a different sentence would have been imposed in the absence of
the error.
D. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Finally, Flores asserts defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing
to object to the judge's sentencing decision. Flores has not carried his burden to establish
ineffective assistance.
First, we have not applied forfeiture, thus counsel's failure to object has not
disadvantaged Flores. His arguments regarding sentencing have been evaluated on the
merits, and rejected by this court.
Where a defendant seeks to overturn a conviction based on ineffective assistance
of counsel, the defendant has the burden to show not only that counsel's conduct was
below the standard of care, but also that the defendant was prejudiced. (Strickland v.
Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 (Strickland).) In order to establish prejudice under
the Strickland standard, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a
different result would have occurred in the absence of the alleged error. (Id. at pp. 687-
688, 694; People v. Ledesma (1987) 43 Cal.3d 171, 216-218.) Flores has not even come
close to establishing prejudice.
8
As we have indicated, the failure to object has not worked a forfeiture. Further,
even if there had been a timely objection to the invalid factor, there were four valid
factors in aggravation, and the court did not credit the mental health condition as a factor
in mitigation. The failure to timely object to the single invalid factor in aggravation has
not caused Flores any prejudice.
In the absence of a showing of prejudice under Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. 668,
we do not need to address the question of whether defense counsel's failure to object was
inadequate performance.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
McDONALD, J.
9