People v. Davityan CA2/8

Filed 2/10/21 P. v. Davityan CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B298328

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA467707) v.

NAREK DAVITYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Norman Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed. Lori A. Quick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kim Aarons and Kristen J. Inberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

Narek Davityan pleaded guilty to running a chop shop and, as a felon, to possessing three guns. The court sentenced him to two years in prison. Davityan appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to relieve his appointed defense attorney Nicholas Okorocha. (See People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden).) We review this issue for abuse of discretion. (People v. Rodriguez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 587, 623 (Rodriguez).) Davityan asked for a Marsden hearing and the court promptly complied. The court asked Davityan what the problem was. Davityan expressed some particular dissatisfactions. When his account got a bit off track, the court said, “Well, we’re not dealing with that. We’re dealing with the Marsden situation, and why you think that you’d rather not have this counsel.” Davityan explained he had many disagreements with his lawyer. He said he and his lawyer were “not on good terms exactly.” Davityan said he had taken many notes but the lawyer “didn’t want those notes.” Further, the lawyer “failed to retrieve the . . . discovery we needed for the case.” When Davityan paused, the court said, “Go ahead.” Davityan continued, explaining it seemed like his lawyer was avoiding him “like, lunch time and prior to that; prior to lunch time.” The court said, “All right. Anything further?” Davityan continued. He said his lawyer incorrectly informed him the return of a search warrant on his property accurately listed what the police had taken. This was wrong, Davityan said, because the police “actually had taken a lot more things . . . .” The court said, “Anything else?”