Filed 1/26/16 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063131
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1202628)
GREGORY DANIEL FLORES, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, and Annie
Featherman Fraser, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I
INTRODUCTION
This appeal involves additional errors in sentencing and the abstract of judgment
after an earlier appeal, E057411. Defendant and the People both agree that the trial court
erred in not amending the abstract of judgment and in its sentence for false imprisonment.
In 2012, a jury convicted defendant Gregory Daniel Flores of three gang-related
crimes: false imprisonment, making criminal threats, and street terrorism. (Pen. Code,
§§ 186.22, 236, and 422.)1 In defendant’s first appeal, this court ordered the trial court to
amend the abstract of judgment to reflect defendant’s conviction for false imprisonment
instead of kidnapping and to sentence defendant correctly for false imprisonment.
(E057411, p. 20.) The parties agree, and we concur that, upon remand, the trial court did
not follow the directions given by this court in the first appeal. We affirm the judgment
but remand again for the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment and to resentence
defendant on false imprisonment.
II
BACKGROUND
As set forth in the statement of facts in the previous opinion, defendant committed
his crimes while trying to collect a gang-related debt of one or two hundred dollars.
(Case No. E057411, pp. 3-5.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.
2
In September 2012, a jury convicted defendant of false imprisonment, making
criminal threats, and street terrorism. (§§ 186.22, 236, and 422.) The jury also found
true the allegations of gang-related conduct on counts 1 and 2. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)
The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 was enacted, effective November 7, 2012.
(§ 1170.126.) On January 4, 2013, the court sentenced defendant. The court imposed a
sentence for false imprisonment of 25 years to life, plus a four-year gang enhancement.
In defendant’s previous appeal, this court remanded so that the trial court could
correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that defendant was convicted of “false
imprisonment not kidnapping. . . . Additionally, the court should resentence Flores on
the false imprisonment conviction, according to the Three Strikes Reform Act.”
(E057411, p. 20.) The opinion was filed on October 10, 2014.
On November 12, 2014, defendant filed a petition for recall of his sentence under
the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2014. (§ 1170.126.)
On January 20, 2015, the trial court enumerated defendant’s commitment offenses
as criminal threats, kidnapping, and active gang participation, all serious felonies. The
court ruled defendant was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.126,
subdivision (e). The court denied his petition.
On April 2, 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on the remittitur from the
Court of Appeal. The trial court did not correct the sentence as directed and did not
amend the abstract of judgment to reflect defendant’s conviction for false imprisonment
instead of kidnapping. Notably, the trial court continued to sentence defendant to 25
years to life for false imprisonment.
3
III
DISCUSSION
Defendant first argues that, because he was convicted of false imprisonment, not
kidnapping, the trial court should have granted a hearing on the issue of whether he was
entitled to “partial” relief on his 2014 petition. We disagree for at least two reasons. In
2013, defendant already received the benefit of Three Strikes reform. Defendant was
sentenced in January 2013 after the passage of the Reform Act of 2012, section 1170.12.
Therefore, he is not entitled to resentencing under the subsequent Reform Act of 2014.
Furthermore, defendant does not offer any authority to support that he is eligible for
“partial” relief under section 1170.126 when he is still ineligible for resentencing because
of his additional conviction for making criminal threats. Nevertheless, defendant is still
entitled to be resentenced for false imprisonment.
In our previous opinion, this court fully discussed the proper sentence for
defendant and concluded the abstract of judgment should be amended to show that
defendant was convicted of false imprisonment, not kidnapping, and defendant should be
resentenced on false imprisonment. (E057411, pp. 18-20.) The parties are in agreement
that defendant should not be sentenced to 25 years to life on false imprisonment and the
trial court should make these corrections to the sentence and to the abstract of judgment.
IV
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment but remand so the trial court may amend the abstract of
judgment to reflect that Flores was convicted of false imprisonment, not kidnapping, and
4
so the court may resentence defendant on false imprisonment and not sentence him to 25
years to life for that crime.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
McKINSTER
J.
5