Filed 9/4/15 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D067067

 (Super. Ct. No. SCN319699)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. 

Bowman, Judge. Affirmed.

Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In this criminal case, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief presenting no 

argument for reversal, but inviting this court to review the record for error in accordance 

with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We gave defendant and appellant 
2

Christopher Flores an opportunity to file a brief on his own behalf, and he has done so. 

After independently reviewing the record for error, as required by Anders v. California

(1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and Wende, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

Flores was charged with and convicted, by a jury, of attempted premeditated 

murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, 189); the jury also found true gun use and criminal 

street gang enhancements (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c), 12022.5, subd. (a), 186.22, 

subd. (b)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial judge found Flores had suffered a prior 

strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and sentenced him to a term of 30 years to life on 

the attempted premeditated murder conviction and a consecutive 20-year term on the gun 

use enhancement. Although Flores was also convicted of assault with a firearm (§ 245, 

subd. (a)(2)), sentence on that crime, and the remaining street gang and gun use 

enhancements, was imposed and stayed; with respect to Flores's additional conviction of 

resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)), a misdemeanor, his sentence was deemed served.

The judgment of conviction grew out of Flores's attempt to kill a former gang 

member, Louis Cervantes. In January 2013, Cervantes was shot and seriously injured by 

a third gang member, and testified against his assailant. Following his testimony, 

Cervantes was relocated to another community.

Later, in May 2013, after Cervantes had violated the terms of his relocation 

agreement with prosecutors and returned to his old neighborhood, Flores confronted 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

Cervantes in front of Cervantes's grandparents' trailer, pulled out a chrome revolver, and 

as Cervantes attempted to flee, fired the revolver at Cervantes. The shot missed 

Cervantes but hit a mirror on the truck near where Cervantes was attempting to hide. 

Cervantes was able to identify Flores in a photo array, along with another gang member 

who had threatened him earlier in the evening. 

As we have indicated, appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing 

the facts and proceedings in the trial court. Counsel has presented no argument for 

reversal and has invited this court to review the record for error in accordance with 

Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Nonetheless, counsel has identified a number of potential 

issues; we find that none of them have merit.2 

As we have also indicated, we have given Flores leave to file a supplemental brief 

and he has done so. His principal concern is his belief that the trial judge who presided 

over his trial will determine his appeal and be biased against him; his belief is, of course, 

mistaken and may grow out of reference to the trial judge in the caption of the brief 

counsel filed on his behalf. In any event, his appeal has been reviewed by a panel of 

justices of the Court of Appeal and his trial judge has not participated in any manner in 

disposition of his appeal.

 

2 The issues identified by counsel are: 1) the trial court's failure to bifurcate the trial 

of the substantive offenses and the gang enhancements; 2) the admission of gang-related 

evidence; 3) the sufficiency of the evidence of attempted premeditated murder; 3) denial 

of Flores's motion for new trial; 4) denial of Flores's motion to strike his prior juvenile 

strike adjudication; 5) ordering restitution for hotel expenses Cervantes incurred 

following the shooting. Our review of the record shows that none of these issues has 

arguable merit. 
4

A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders,

supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Flores has 

been represented by competent counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

BENKE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

McINTYRE, J.