Filed 6/20/17 P. v. Flores CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JAIME RICARDO FLORES,

Defendant and Appellant.
H044113
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1493551)

In 2014, defendant Jaime Ricardo Flores raped two young women and attempted to rape a third woman. On each occasion, he used a weapon and handcuffed or tied up the woman in his car to facilitate his assault. The women were vulnerable because they worked as prostitutes.
Defendant was charged by amended complaint with assault with intent to commit rape (Pen. Code, § 220), three counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), three counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), three counts of felony false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237), three counts of criminal threat (§ 422), and two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)). The amended complaint also contained one strike allegations for multiple victims and tying or binding (§§ 667.61, subds. (a) & (e)) as to the rape counts, and personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)) allegations as to all of the counts except the assault with a deadly weapon counts.
After the first day of the June 2016 preliminary examination, during which the two rape victims testified, defendant decided to enter into a plea agreement. He pleaded no contest to the two rape counts and the assault with intent to commit rape count and admitted newly amended enhancement allegations that he had used a deadly weapon (§ 12022.3, subd. (a)) in the commission of each of these three counts. The agreement specified a sentence of 50 years in prison.
At the commencement of the October 2016 sentencing hearing, defendant’s trial counsel informed the court that defendant wanted to withdraw his pleas and admissions, but counsel saw no basis for him to do so. The court then held a hearing to determine whether there was any basis for appointment of substitute counsel to bring a motion to withdraw. At the hearing, the court heard defendant’s complaints, which amounted to second thoughts about his decision to enter into the plea agreement. Defendant’s trial counsel explained why he had advised defendant to accept the plea agreement. The court found no basis upon which to appoint substitute counsel for defendant.
The court imposed the agreed term of 50 years in prison, which consisted of upper terms for the rape counts (eight years each), the middle term for the assault count (four years), and three consecutive 10-year terms (one for each of the counts) for the weapon use enhancements. The terms were fully consecutive under section 667.6, subdivision (d). Defendant was ordered to pay $800 in victim restitution, a $300 restitution fine, and other mandatory fines and fees. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal challenging only post-plea matters.
Appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no issues. Defendant was notified of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf but has failed to avail himself of the opportunity. Pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there are no arguable issues on appeal.
The judgment is affirmed.






_______________________________
Mihara, J.



WE CONCUR:






_____________________________
Elia, Acting P. J.






_____________________________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.