People v. Voskanyan CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 5, 2023 No. B328287Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence after finding no arguable issues upon independent review of the record and determining that the defendant's specific claims regarding evidence sufficiency, ineffective assistance of counsel, and resentencing were meritless or procedurally improper.

Issues

Whether a defendant who pleads no contest may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction.
Whether the defendant established a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a failure to investigate vehicle registration.
Whether the appellate court may grant resentencing relief under Penal Code section 1170.18 in the first instance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“‘[b]y pleading guilty, a defendant admits the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and is therefore not entitled to a review on the merits.’”

“We may not consider defendant’s arguments in favor of resentencing until the trial court has had an opportunity to rule on them via this procedure.”

Filed 12/5/23 P. v. Voskanyan CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B328287

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA098879) v.

ROBERT VOSKANYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Robert Voskanyan (defendant) filed a timely notice of appeal following his entry of a plea of no contest to one count of receiving a stolen vehicle. (Pen. Code, § 496d.)1 He also admitted to a prior conviction for carjacking (§ 1170.12), which constituted a prior “strike” under California’s “Three Strikes” law (§ 667). Defendant was sentenced to a total of 32 months in state prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

Following defendant’s notice of appeal, the trial court granted a certificate of probable cause. We appointed counsel to represent defendant for this appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and asked this court to independently review the record to determine whether any arguable issues exist. On September 25, 2023, we sent a notice to defendant advising him that he had 30 days in which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider; defendant filed a supplemental brief on October 6, 2023. Finding no arguable issues, we affirm. DISCUSSION I. Defendant’s Arguments Defendant’s supplemental brief raises three arguments, all of which are unavailing. Notwithstanding the fact that he entered a plea of no contest, defendant’s first argument appears to attack the sufficiency of evidence supporting the charged offense.2 But “‘[b]y pleading guilty, a defendant admits the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the crime, and is therefore not entitled to a review on the merits.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Hunter (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 37, 42; see also People v. Cisneros-Ramirez (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 393, 406 [“‘“[O]btaining a certificate of

People v. Voskanyan CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B328287

ROBERT VOSKANYAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief