People v. Flores CA4/1, D068359

In 2014 Flores slit a customer's throat with a straight razor while working as a barber; he later said he did it for being "dumb" and disrespectful.
Flores pleaded guilty to attempted murder and admitted a deadly-weapon enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)); the great-bodily-injury allegation was dismissed.
The court sentenced Flores to the nine-year upper term for attempted murder plus a one-year weapon enhancement, totaling 10 years.
Defense submitted two mental-health reports arguing mitigation; the probation report also discussed Flores's mental issues.
At sentencing the court found two mitigating factors (no prior record; early admission) but rejected mental illness as mitigating because experts did not link it causally to the offense.
The court relied on multiple aggravating factors (great bodily injury; victim vulnerability; flight without aid; danger to society) but also improperly relied on weapon use as an aggravating factor while imposing the weapon enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the upper term	The People argued the court properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors and that valid aggravators support the upper term	Flores argued the court failed to treat his mental condition as mitigation and improperly weighed aggravators (including weapon use)	The court affirmed: trial court’s discretionary weighing was not an abuse; upper term supported by valid aggravators despite error on weapon factor
Whether using weapon use as an aggravating factor was permissible when a weapon enhancement was imposed	People conceded the court erred to the extent it doubled the weapon factor	Flores argued the weapon finding was improper and required resentencing	Court agreed it was error to use weapon as aggravator but found the error harmless given multiple other valid aggravators
Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to sentencing	People argued forfeiture is not controlling here and that no prejudice shown	Flores argued counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance causing prejudice	Court held Flores failed to show prejudice under Strickland; sentencing decision stands

People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (establishes forfeiture rule for sentencing challenges)
People v. Avalos, 47 Cal.App.4th 1569 (trial court has broad sentencing discretion in choosing and weighing factors)
People v. Superior Court (Alvarez), 14 Cal.4th 968 (appellate review limited; cannot substitute court’s judgment)
People v. Castellano, 140 Cal.App.3d 608 (a single valid aggravating factor can support an upper term)
People v. Forster, 29 Cal.App.4th 1746 (cannot use fact underlying an enhancement as an aggravating factor)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (appellate role in reviewing sentencing discretionary choices)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard—performance and prejudice)
People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (prejudice standard under ineffective assistance review)