Filed 6/23/26 P. v. Flores CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D086986
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. INF062219)
EDGAR ANTONIO FLORES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed.
Edgar Antonio Flores, in pro. per., and William D. Farber, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2010, Edgar Antonio Flores was convicted of second degree murder,
among other offenses arising out of a high-speed gun battle between rival
gang members. Flores was convicted of murder based upon the provocative
act theory as an aider and abettor. Flores appealed and this court affirmed
his conviction in an unpublished opinion (People v. Paez, et al., (July 3, 2012,
D058373) [nonpub. opn.]).
In March 2021, Flores filed a pro per petition for resentencing under
Penal Code section 1172.6. The petition was denied by the Superior Court
and Flores again appealed. This court affirmed the denial of the petition in a
published opinion (People v. Flores (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1164).
In April 2025, Flores filed a second pro per petition for resentencing
under Penal Code section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received
briefing, and held a hearing. The prosecutor urged denial of the petition as it
was simply a restatement of the first petition without any difference in law or
facts of the case. Defense counsel agreed, and the court denied the petition
without holding an evidentiary hearing. The court also considered this
court’s opinion affirming the denial of the first petition for resentencing
because Flores was convicted of provocative act murder, which required proof
of malice when this case was tried.
Flores has appealed from the denial of his second resentencing petition.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been
able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the
court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record under
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386
U.S. 738.
We advised Flores he could file his own brief on appeal. Flores has
filed a supplemental brief in which he makes several assertions of error. He
complains about his codefendant being tried based on possible prejudice. He
also speculates he might have been convicted of murder based on some
impermissible theory. Flores has not identified any arguable issues for
reversal on appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts of the offenses in this case were thoroughly discussed in our
opinion affirming the convictions, and in our opinion affirming the denial of
the first petition for resentencing. We will not review those facts for a third
time in this opinion.
DISCUSSION
We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error under the procedure outlined in Wende. We have not discovered any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented
Flores in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
KELETY, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.