People v. Flores CA2/6 ( 2024 )

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
2
was concerned that the allegations about Flores’s threats, if true,
“would pose an ongoing risk to [J.D.].”
The trial court found Flores was not “suitable” for
diversion. It said Flores took pictures “of himself with large
knives and somehow [found] out where the victim is located.” “I
have real strong reservations about the safety of the victim. He
has been bothering [her] for six years. He’s gone out to the
place.” He continued to contact her. The court was concerned
that Flores would “follow through with threats to kill [J.D.] and
her husband.” There was no way to “monitor him.” Flores was
not going to be in a “lock” down facility.
DISCUSSION
Denying the Diversion Motion
A defendant in a criminal case may move for diversion if he
or she has a developmental disability. (§ 1001.21, subd. (a).)
Diversion is an alternative to the normal criminal procedure to
allow eligible developmentally disabled defendants to obtain
necessary treatment and rehabilitation services for their
disabilities. (§ 1001.20, subd. (b).) “If the divertee has performed
satisfactorily during the period of diversion, the criminal charges
shall be dismissed at the end of the diversion period.”
(§ 1001.31.)
If the defendant “consents to the diversion process” and
waives his or her right to a speedy trial, “the court shall order the
prosecutor, the probation department, and the regional center to
prepare reports on specified aspects of the defendant’s case.”
(§ 1001.22.) If from the various reports the court is satisfied the
defendant has a “developmental disability” and is “eligible for
regional center services,” it may grant an order that a “diversion
3
program be implemented for a period of time.” (§ 1001.23, subd.
(a).)
Before granting diversion, the trial court must be “satisfied
that the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger
to public safety.” (§ 1001.23, subd. (b).) The court’s decision
denying a diversion is reviewed “for an abuse of discretion.”
(People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1000.) For a
reversal, the defendant must show the trial court had “ ‘ “no
reasonable basis” ’ ” for its decision. (Id. at p. 1001.)
Unreasonable Risk of Danger to Public Safety
Here there was substantial evidence to support the trial
court’s findings that Flores posed an unreasonable risk to public
safety and he was not “suitable” for diversion.
A deputy district attorney filed a declaration stating that
Flores in “vivid detail” describes “the way that he wants to
sexually assault [J.D.].” Flores “wishes for [J.D.’s] sexual assault
and ultimate death.” He gave a “specific and imminent timeline
for murdering [J.D.] and her husband.” (Italics added.) He did
this “in conjunction with sending photographs of large kitchen
knives and fantasizing about their demise.” The diversion plan
would not protect the victims because it would allow Flores “to
remain effectively unmonitored out of custody.” Initiating a
diversion plan “at this time” would not give Flores’s treating
doctors the ability to curb or predict his “violent tendencies” to
protect his victims. Counsel declared Flores “poses an
unreasonable risk to public safety.” Flores’s threats are “explicit,
detailed, and persistent.”
The victim said she does not know Flores. For six years
Flores “harassed” and stalked her by calling and texting her. On
one day he left “31 voicemails within about 42 minutes.” “He
4
would write things sexual in nature about [her] body and what he
wanted to do to it.” He threatened to kill her and her husband.
J.D.’s husband said Flores conducted a long pattern of
harassment but his “tactics” have “shifted to more violent
threats.”
The probation department recommended that diversion be
denied. It noted that the Regional Center’s initial proposed
diversion plan does not “prohibit victim contact,” and “terms to
protect the victim were not even addressed.” The probation
department said Flores has “anger management issues.”
The prosecutor noted that Flores “made several attempts to
make physical, personal contact with [J.D.].”
The Regional Center initially filed a proposed three-page
diversion plan for Flores. But at the first diversion hearing, the
Regional Center changed its position. Mr. Scott, who represented
the Regional Center, told the trial court the Regional Center was
withdrawing its support for diversion. He said, “[T]hese
allegations, they’re very serious allegations, and if they are
proved, then they would pose an ongoing risk to the alleged
victim.” (Italics added.)
Flores notes that he “renewed his request for diversion.”
But he concedes, “[b]y this point in time, [the Regional Center]
was also recommending against diversion for [Flores].” (Italics
added.) When the Regional Center, which provides the diversion
services, is opposed to diversion for a defendant, as here, this
constitutes strong evidence in support of the trial court’s decision.
The Regional Center is in the best position to know whether it
can provide safe and effective diversion services.
5
Premature Decision
Flores contends the trial court did not have sufficient
reports to make a decision on diversion. But it obtained the
reports required by the statute. It had a report from the People,
the probation department, and the Regional Center. (§ 1001.22.)
Flores contends the trial court should have waited until it
received another written report from the Regional Center. But at
the two diversion hearings, the Regional Center opposed a
diversion order and indicated that it could not provide diversion
services for Flores. The court could reasonably find it was not
necessary for the Regional Center to provide another written
report that would merely confirm what it had already
represented to the court at the two hearings. Moreover, the
Regional Center’s current position was consistent with the
probation report and the evidence the People presented.
Flores notes that the trial court indicated that it would be
helpful to have another report from the Regional Center before
deciding on diversion. The court said, “You know what, it would
be really helpful before I make that finding if I had something in
writing from [the Regional Center] after they’ve had a chance for
their mental health team to do whatever they do in terms of
preparing for court.” Flores claims the court’s comments impeach
the court’s subsequent final decision to deny diversion without
obtaining that supplemental report.
But the trial court’s comments before it reaches its final
decision cannot be used to impeach the final judgment.
(Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991)
233 Cal.App.3d 577, 591.) “There are instances where a court’s
comments may be valuable in illustrating the trial judge’s theory
but they may never be used to impeach the order or judgment.”
6
(Ibid., italics added.) The court may change its position before it
renders a final judgment. A “trial judge’s prejudgment oral
expressions do not bind the court” or prevent it from changing its
position in the final judgment. (Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz
(2008) 170 Cal.App.4th 229, 268.) Here there was a reasonable
basis for it to do so given the Regional Center’s repeated current
position against diversion at two hearings, the probation report,
and the People’s evidence. Flores has not shown error.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:
BALTODANO, J.
CODY, J.
7
Rocky J. Baio, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Robert L. Hernandez, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Christopher G.
Sanchez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.