Filed 5/27/16 P. v. Flores CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 specifie d 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TO NY AUGUSTINE FLORES , Defendant and Appellant. F 070498
( Kern Super. Ct. No

. BF156383A )



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Steven M.
Katz , Judge. Carol Foster , under appointment by the Court of A ppeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J., and Detjen , J.2 INTRODUCTION Appellant Tony Augustine Flores was convicted pursuant to a no contest plea of
one count of criminal thre at within the meaning of Penal Code section 422. 1 He admitted having suffered a prior strike conviction, having a serious felony conviction and having served a prior prison term. The Kern County Superior Court sentenced him to a total term of 10 year s in prison. Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal

. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. This court thereafter issued a letter inviting appellant to submit supplemental briefing. No supplemental brief

was su bmitted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 5, 2014, the Kern County District Attorney filed a complaint charging appellant as follows: Count one, willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condi tion (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); c o unt two, at tempted murder (§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)); c ou nt three, criminal threat (§ 422); c ount four, willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); and c ount five, misde meanor false imprisonment (§ 236). As to c ounts one through five it was alleged that during the commission of the offense appellant personally inflicted great bodily injury within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e), that he had suffered a prior strike conviction within the meaning
of secti on s 667, subdivision s (c ) through (j) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (e), that he had suffered a prior serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and that he had suffered two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 66 7.5, subdivision (b).

1 Unle ss otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.3

On August 15, 2014, appellant entered a plea agreement wherein he pled no contest to count three, admitted the prior strike conviction, admitted the serious felony conviction, and admitted having served a prior prison term. The par ties stipulated that
there was a factual basis for c ount three. The plea provided a stipulated sentence of the
mid

- term of two years doubled to four years, plus five years for the serious felony prior conviction, plus one year for the prior prison term fo r a total of 1 0 years in prison. In exchange, upon motion of the District Attorney, the court dismissed the remaining counts
and enhancements. On September 15, 2014, the court sentenced appellant to a term of four years, the
mid

- term of two years double d pursuant to section 667, subdivision (e)(1). His sentence was enhanced by five years for the prior serious felony and by one year for the prior prison term. The court awarded appellant 44 days actual time and 44 days conduct
credits. The court imposed a $30 conviction assessment and a $40 court operations

a ssessment, a $300 restitution fine and a $300 su spended restitution fine. The c ourt further ordered appellant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined. On November 14, 2014, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436 identifying no arguable issues and asking this court to independently review the entire record on appeal.
DISCUSSION
A fter independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. ( People v

. Wende, supra , 25 Cal.3d 436.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.