People v. Baghumyan CA1/1

Filed 9/21/15 P. v. Baghumyan CA1/1 Received for posting 5/16/16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A141245 v. ARMEN BAGHUMYAN, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CT13023829) Defendant and Appellant. ORDER RECALLING REMITTITUR AND MODIFYING OPINION

[CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

BY THE COURT: Good cause appearing, respondent’s motion to recall the remittitur in the above- referenced matter is granted. The remittitur issued by this court on September 1, 2015 is recalled, and the superior court clerk is directed to return the remittitur to this court for cancellation forthwith. Once the clerk of this court is in receipt of the remittitur, the clerk is then directed to re-issue and re-file the opinion of this court originally filed on June 29, 2015. Thereafter, on our own motion, we order the opinion modified as follows: 1. On page 1, the first sentence of the first paragraph shall be modified to read as follow:

1

Defendant Armen Baghumyan appeals from a judgment, following a jury trial and conviction of telephonic harassment (Pen. Code, § 653m),1 a misdemeanor, and conviction by plea of obstructing a person’s movement (§ 647c), also a misdemeanor.

There is no change to footnote 1.

2. On page 1, the third sentence of the first paragraph is modified to read as follows: The trial court sentenced him to 179 days in county jail, with credit for time served of 179 days. 3. On page 2, the last sentence on the page, which carries over to page 3 is modified to read as follows: Whether defendant’s belated request that the jury be instructed that count 5, misdemeanor telephonic harassment, was a lesser included offense of the count 1 felony stalking offense was properly denied is moot given the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on count 1 and the court’s declaration of a mistrial. 4. On page 3, the second full paragraph beginning “The record does reflect an error . . . .” is deleted. 5. On page 3, the first sentence of the third full paragraph is modified to read as follows: Because the reporter’s transcript indicates the court, itself, did not actually impose any fees and fines, we therefore reverse the fees and fines and remand the matter to the trial court to impose fees and fines as required and within the sound exercise of its discretion. 6. On page 3, the paragraph under the section titled “Disposition” is modified so that the words “and the clerk’s minutes of February 7, 2014, and the commitment are