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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

TONY AUGUSTINE FLORES,

 Defendant and Appellant.

F070498

(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 Appeal, 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 threat 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 years 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 submitted. 

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 condition 

(§ 273.5, subd. (a)); count two, attempted murder (§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)); count three, 

criminal threat (§ 422); count four, willful infliction of corporal injury resulting in a 

traumatic condition (§ 273.5, subd. (a)); and count five, misdemeanor false imprisonment 

(§ 236). As to counts 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 sections 667, subdivisions (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 667.5, 

subdivision (b). 

 

1 Unless 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 parties stipulated that

there was a factual basis for count 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 for a total of 10 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 doubled 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 

assessment, a $300 restitution fine and a $300 suspended restitution fine. The court 

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

After 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.