People v. Tashchyan CA5

Filed 8/26/25 P. v. Tashchyan CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088105 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F08905779) v.

NERSES TASHCHYAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly A. Gaab, Judge. Nerses Tashchyan, in pro. per.; and John P. Dwyer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.

Appellant Nerses Tashchyan appeals from the sentence imposed after the trial court held a resentencing hearing to consider whether, under modifications made by Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.), it would strike a Penal Code section 12022.531 firearm enhancement previously imposed. Appellant’s counsel initially filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), requesting this court independently review the record and suggesting as an alternative, the court proceed under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant then submitted a separate supplemental letter brief raising points he wishes to have reviewed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises out of a 2008 shooting and two subsequent trials that eventually resulted in appellant being convicted of murdering his daughter-in-law’s father, Souren Avetisian (the victim). The record as recited in appellant’s prior appeal shows that appellant admitted to shooting the victim but raised several defenses, including being too drunk to recall the incident, the shooting resulted from a struggle over the gun, and appellant suffered from certain mental impairments, including dementia, due to a past head injury. (See People v. Taschyan (Aug. 14, 2017, F069692) [nonpub. opn].) Appellant was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life on the murder conviction along with a second, consecutive term of 25 years to life for using a firearm under section 12022.53. In 2023, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that Senate Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) required a resentencing hearing so that appellant could request the trial court exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancement. The People conceded a resentencing hearing was proper, and the case was returned to the trial court. The trial court granted the habeas petition and resentenced appellant.