The People v. Florez

• Docket Number: F085834
• Decision Date: 28 December 2023
• Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSEPH FLOREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

1

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH FLOREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

F085834

California Court of Appeals, Fifth District

December 28, 2023

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. VCF030243B-96. Antonio A. Reyes, Judge.

Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

THE COURT ^[*]

2

INTRODUCTION

In 1996, Joseph Florez (appellant) pleaded no contest to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2))^[1] and other related charges and allegations. He was sentenced to four years in state prison.

On January 6, 2023, 27 years later, appellant filed a petition for writ of coram nobis in the trial court, alleging his 1996 plea was invalid because he was not advised of his constitutional rights or the direct consequences of his plea. The trial court denied the petition on the merits.

On appeal from the denial of the writ petition, appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief with this court pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no error and asking this court to review the record and determine if there are any reasonably arguable issues on appeal. We sent notice to appellant informing him of his right to file a supplemental letter or brief. Appellant submitted a letter contending his plea is invalid because he was not advised that his conviction could be used in the future to increase punishment.

We conclude appellant has not presented new facts that warrant coram nobis relief. Moreover, his claim that he was not properly advised during his plea hearing lacks merit, as it is well settled that future use of a conviction is not a direct consequence of a plea requiring advisement. (People v. Sipe (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 468, 479; People v. Bernal (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1455, 1457.)

We have also conducted an independent review of the record and find that no arguable legal or factual issues exist. We affirm.

3

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the Tulare County District Attorney's Office filed an information charging appellant with assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), a firearm enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)), and conspiracy to commit assault with a firearm (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 245, subd. (a)(2)). The information also alleged appellant suffered a prior conviction within the meaning of section 1170.12, former subdivision (c)(1).

Appellant pleaded no contest to all charges and allegations except the firearm enhancement, which the People agreed to dismiss. Appellant also admitted a probation violation in another matter. The trial court gave an indicated sentence of four years.

Prior to accepting the no contest plea, the trial court advised appellant of his maximum sentence if convicted of all charges. The trial court advised appellant of the direct consequences of his plea, including that he would have to serve 80 percent of his sentence, the plea could result in a violation of probation or parole, that he could face adverse immigration consequences, and that he could be ordered to pay a restitution fine and direct restitution to his victims.

The trial court then asked appellant if he understood he had the right to a jury trial, to present a defense and use the subpoena powers of the court to compel the testimony of witnesses, to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and to remain silent. Appellant acknowledged that he understood and was giving up each of these rights.

The trial court asked appellant if he had any questions regarding the rights he was giving up, the consequences of his plea, the nature of the charges against him, or any other questions. Appellant responded that he did not.

Defense counsel stipulated there was a factual basis for the plea based on the police reports and preliminary hearing transcript.

4

The trial court found appellant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his constitutional rights, entered...