63 Cal.App.5th 368
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Carl Ray Flores shot a man in the neck at point-blank range; the victim survived with serious injuries. Flores was convicted by jury of attempted premeditated murder and a personal discharge causing great bodily injury firearm enhancement (Pen. Code § 12022.53(d)).
- Flores admitted three prior felonies (including carjacking and attempted murder from the same 1999 proceeding) and a prior prison term, making him a third-strike offender and exposing him to life under the Three Strikes law.
- At sentencing the court struck the prison-prior and prior-serious-felony enhancements under § 1385 but still included their terms when calculating the minimum indeterminate term under Option 3, resulting in a 69-years-to-life sentence; the court also declined to strike the 25-to-life gun enhancement.
- On appeal Flores challenged: (1) the denial of relief as to the gun enhancement; (2) denial of Vargas treatment to treat two prior convictions as a single strike; and (3) whether enhancements stricken under § 1385 may nonetheless be used to increase the Option 3 minimum term.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, upheld the refusal to strike or reduce the gun enhancement and the denial of Vargas relief, but held that once an enhancement is stricken under § 1385 it cannot be used to increase any term (including the Option 3 minimum); it remanded for resentencing because the trial court had misapplied enhancements and double-counted them.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Flores) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether court abused discretion by refusing to strike or reduce the 25-to-life firearm enhancement | People argued the enhancement was appropriate given the serious, close-range neck shooting and Flores’s recent parole status | Flores argued the court irrationally penalized him for nearly killing the victim and should have struck or reduced the enhancement under SB 620 | Court upheld the enhancement: refusal not an abuse of discretion given violence, callousness, and public danger |
| 2. Whether two prior convictions should count as a single strike under Vargas | People argued the two convictions were separate acts and thus separate strikes | Flores argued the convictions arose from the same incident and should be treated as one strike under Vargas | Court held Vargas inapplicable: convictions arose from distinct acts (carjacking then attempted murder), so two strikes properly counted |
| 3. Whether an enhancement stricken under § 1385 can still be used to increase the Option 3 minimum indeterminate term | People contended that a prior serious-felony enhancement, even if its punishment is stricken, must still be counted when calculating the Option 3 minimum term | Flores argued that a stricken enhancement cannot be used to increase any aspect of punishment, including the minimum indeterminate term | Court held stricken enhancements (or their punishment) may not be used to increase the minimum indeterminate term or otherwise add punishment; remanded for resentencing because the court misapplied and double-counted enhancements |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 34 Cal.4th 397 (Cal. 2004) (describes dual use of enhancements in Option 3: to compute minimum term and as separate determinate term)
- People v. Dotson, 16 Cal.4th 547 (Cal. 1997) (Three Strikes minimum term framework and Option descriptions)
- People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (Cal. 2014) (multiple convictions arising from a single act against a single victim count as one strike)
- People v. Benson, 18 Cal.4th 24 (Cal. 1998) (distinguishes single act from multiple acts in same incident for strike counting)
- People v. Acosta, 29 Cal.4th 105 (Cal. 2002) (when enhancements were mandatory, they were included in Option 3 minimum term)
- People v. Fuentes, 1 Cal.5th 218 (Cal. 2016) (§ 1385 can strike enhancements or their punishment; stricken punishment cannot be used to add punishment)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (confirmed trial court discretion to dismiss serious-felony enhancements under SB 1393)
- People v. Miranda, 192 Cal.App.4th 398 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (applied Option 3 to attempted murder with enhancements used in both steps of sentencing)