People v. Flores
A164257
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 24, 2022Background
- In July 2018 defendant Gustavo Medina Flores assaulted his girlfriend (Doe) during an argument in a car: he struck her, choked her, pulled her hair, threatened to kill her, and detained Doe and her child; police arrested him and Doe had facial injuries.
- The Madera County District Attorney charged Flores with felony corporal injury to a cohabitant (§ 273.5(a)), assault (§ 245(a)(4)), criminal threats (§ 422), and false imprisonment (§ 236), and alleged a prior strike, a prior serious felony, and a prior prison term.
- At trial the People introduced testimony from a witness about three uncharged 2017 domestic-violence incidents against a different former girlfriend (V.Z.); the court admitted the evidence under Evid. Code § 1109 after a § 352 balancing and gave CALCRIM No. 852 limiting instruction.
- The jury convicted Flores on multiple counts; the court imposed an aggregate sentence of 18 years 8 months (including the upper term for § 273.5, a five-year § 667(a) enhancement, and a one-year § 667.5 enhancement) and various fees.
- On appeal the court affirmed the convictions, upheld admission of prior-act evidence and the jury instruction, declined to remand to strike the § 667 enhancement, but struck the § 667.5 prior prison-term enhancement and vacated unpaid presentencing-report and booking fees unenforceable under AB 1869.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior domestic-violence evidence (Evid. Code §1109/§352) | Evidence admissible under §1109; probative value outweighs prejudice | Admission was an abuse of discretion and violated due process | Admission proper: incidents were similar, not remote, brief testimony, limiting instruction reduced prejudice; no abuse of discretion |
| Constitutionality of CALCRIM No. 852 limiting instruction | Instruction correctly limits jury use of uncharged domestic‑violence evidence and preserves burden of proof | Instruction lessens prosecution’s burden or is otherwise unconstitutional | Instruction valid; Reliford and subsequent cases reject defendant’s constitutional attack |
| Whether sentencing enhancements must be reconsidered under ameliorative legislation (SB 1393 re §667(a)) | No remand needed because record shows court would not have struck enhancement | Court should have remanded to decide whether to strike the prior-felony enhancement | No remand: sentencing court’s comments and imposition of maximum terms show it would have declined to strike the §667(a) enhancement |
| Upper-term imposition under changed law (SB 567) and other sentencing adjustments (§667.5, AB 1869 fees) | Upper term supported by aggravating factors; trial court could consider certified priors; prior prison-term enhancement and some fees are invalid | Upper-term improper without jury findings; §667.5 prison-term duplicative; certain fees unenforceable | Upper term stands (harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given documented priors and probation status); strike one-year §667.5 enhancement as duplicative of §667(a); vacate unpaid presentencing-report and booking fees per AB 1869 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kerley, 23 Cal.App.5th 513 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (discusses §352 review of prior domestic-violence evidence)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (Cal. 1999) (upholds admissibility of other domestic‑violence acts and limiting instructions)
- People v. Cabrera, 152 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (probative value of cumulative prior-act testimony)
- People v. Reliford, 29 Cal.4th 1007 (Cal. 2003) (rejects constitutional challenge to limiting jury instruction on other‑acts evidence)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (Cal. 2007) (Chapman harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard for jury‑trial issues on aggravating circumstances)
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.App.5th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (ameliorative sentencing legislation applies retroactively if judgment not final)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (standard to decide when remand is unnecessary because court would not have struck enhancement)
- People v. McVey, 24 Cal.App.5th 405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (trial court’s express aggravation indicates it would not strike enhancement)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (same prior conviction cannot support both §667 and §667.5 enhancements)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (remand principles when part of sentence is stricken)
- People v. Lopez‑Vinck, 68 Cal.App.5th 945 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (fees eliminated by AB 1869 are unenforceable)