Court Opinion

ID: 9907162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-05 20:02:46.838172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:56:34.361426
License: Public Domain

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    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

2     Among other things, defendant argues that because there is
“reasonable consent [sic] that” the value of the stolen vehicle did
not exceed $950, he is “entitle[d] to have his . . . conviction
reduce[d] to a misdemeanor or to be retried for a felony conviction
under proper legal theory[,]” and that “substantial evidence
support[s] [defendant’s] claim of mistake of fact” regarding the
ownership of the stolen vehicle.

                                2
probable cause does not make cognizable those issues which have
been waived by a plea of guilty’” [Citation.]”] and § 1016, subd. (3)
[“The legal effect of” a plea of no contest “shall be the same as
that of a plea of guilty for all purposes”].)
       Second, defendant contends that his appointed trial counsel
“failed to investigate” “how [the owner of the stolen vehicle]
regist[ered] the car [sic]” with the Department of Motor Vehicles
“when [the owner] did not have the car [sic] or pink-slip in his
pose[ss]ion[,]” an issue that defendant asserts “will ex[o]n[e]rate”
him.3 To the extent that defendant is attempting to raise an
argument based on his constitutional right to effective assistance
of counsel, his argument fails.
       “An ineffective assistance claim requires a showing that
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and that defendant was prejudiced by the
deficient performance. [Citation.] To establish prejudice based
on incompetent advice regarding whether to plead guilty, the
defendant must show ‘a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s incompetence, [he] would not have pleaded guilty and
would have insisted on proceeding to trial.’ [Citation.]” (People v.
Dillard (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 657, 668.) Defendant’s claim falls
short of both requirements. Counsel’s alleged failure to
investigate how the owner of the stolen vehicle subsequently
registered it does not render his performance unreasonably
deficient. Nor is it reasonably probable that an accounting of the
registration process would have prompted defendant to reject a

3     The stolen vehicle was a motorcycle, not a car.

                                 3
plea deal and take the case to trial, especially given the
incriminating facts in the record at the time of his plea.4
       Lastly, defendant asks us to grant resentencing relief per
section 1170.18, which provides that “[a] person who, on
November 5, 2014, was serving a sentence for a conviction,
whether by trial or plea, of a felony or felonies who would have
been guilty of a misdemeanor . . . had this act been in effect at the
time of the offense may petition for a recall of sentence . . . [and]
request resentencing[.]” (§ 1170.18, subd. (a).)
       However, section 1170.18 provides an exclusive procedure
for defendants seeking retroactive relief: A defendant who
believes that he qualifies for relief may file a petition with the
sentencing court for his felony conviction to be recalled and
resentenced as a misdemeanor. (Ibid.) 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.
(People v. DeHoyos (2018) 4 Cal.5th 594, 597 [“[R]esentencing is
available . . . only in accordance with the statutory resentencing
procedure in . . . section 1170.18”].)
       From defendant’s supplemental brief, it seems that he has
already filed a petition with the trial court. If the trial court
ultimately denies that petition and defendant believes that denial
to be in error, he may file another appeal at that time.
II.    Independent Review
       In addition to considering defendant’s contentions of error
we have also conducted our own independent examination of the
record. Having done so, we are satisfied that defendant’s

4     Among other things, the record indicates that, upon being
questioned by police, “defendant made multiple spontaneous
statements stating that he knew the [vehicle] was stolen.”

                                 4
attorney on appeal has complied with the responsibilities of
counsel and that no arguable issue exists. (Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see also Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S.
259, 278–282; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122–124.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

——————————————————————————————
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.

                               5