People v. Orujyan CA4/3

Filed 1/16/25 P. v. Orujyan CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063318

v. (Super. Ct. No. 23WF1198)

HENRIK ORUJYAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Michelle T. LiVecchi-Raufi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted defendant Henrik Orujyan of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The trial court suspended imposition of a sentence, placed Orujyan on two years of formal supervised probation, and ordered him to serve 270 days in jail. We appointed counsel to represent Orujyan on appeal. Counsel filed a brief summarizing the proceedings and facts of the case and advised the court she found no arguable issues to assert on Orujyan’s behalf. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) To assist us in our independent review, counsel suggested we consider whether: (1) the trial court erred by denying defense counsel’s request for an immediate reduction of the conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor pursuant to Penal Code section 17, subdivision (b); (2) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the grand theft conviction. Counsel and this court notified Orujyan he could file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. However, this court did not receive a supplemental brief from him and the time to file one has passed. We have independently reviewed the entire record as required under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738 and Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and we have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. FACTS In March 2023, a loss prevention officer (LPO) working at a Saks Fifth Avenue store received a call concerning a suspicious male quickly leaving the children’s clothing section of the store while holding some designer children’s clothing. Using security cameras, the LPO located the male and began watching his actions. The sequence of events that transpired before and after the LPO received the initial call about the man were captured on video which was played for the jury at trial. We relate those