P. v. Flores
Appellant Guillermo Flores appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence. A jury convicted Flores of attempted voluntary manslaughter, making a criminal threat, and assault on a peace officer. On appeal, Flores challenges his convictions on the ground that the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte regarding reasonable self-defense because, he contends, there was evidence from which the jury could have inferred that he acted in self-defense. Flores also challenges the trial court's decision to impose the upper term for his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter. Flores asserts that the trial court violated his right to a jury trial when the court relied on factors not found by the jury nor admitted by Flores in selecting the upper term.
Court conclude that Flores was not entitled to a self-defense instruction because that defense is inconsistent with Flores's theory of the case, and because there was no evidence from which one could reasonably have inferred that Flores was justified in committing any of the offenses on the ground that he was acting in self-defense. Court also conclude that the trial court did not violate Flores's right to a jury trial in selecting an upper term sentence. In selecting the upper term, the trial court relied on at least one aggravating factor that independently satisfies the requirements of the Sixth Amendment.
Comments on P. v. Flores