Court Opinion

ID: 9656875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:05:07.143939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:37.577812
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/23/23 P. v. Saakyan CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                   B325194

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. PA057735)
           v.

 GAYK SAAKYAN,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.
      Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      No Appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                  ______________________
                  MEMORANDUM OPINION1
      Defendant and appellant Gayk Saakyan appeals the trial
court’s denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code2 section 1172.6 (former § 1170.953). We find no error and
affirm.
A.    Procedural Background
      A second amended information, filed on December 11, 2012,
charged Saakyan with five counts of willful, deliberate and
premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) along
with other offenses not relevant to this appeal. As to the five
attempted murder counts, the second amended information
specially alleged, in part, that Saakyan personally used and
intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury
(§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
      A jury convicted Saakyan of the five willful, deliberate and
premeditated attempted murder counts and found true the
special allegations of firearm use. The trial court sentenced
Saakyan to consecutive life terms for three of the attempted
murders, plus 25 years to life on each of those counts for the
section 12022.53, subdivision (d), enhancements. The court

      1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it
“is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for
unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question
of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Amin., § 8.1(1).)
      2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

      3 The Legislature renumbered the statute as section
1172.6, with no change in text, effective June 30, 2022 (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 10). For ease of reference, we use the current
citation at section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

                                 2
imposed concurrent terms for the other two attempted murder
counts as well as for the attendant enhancements. We affirmed
Saakyan’s conviction in an opinion filed on April 24, 2014.
(People v. Saakyan (Apr. 24, 2014, B246476) [nonpub. opn.].)
       On March 21, 2022, Saakyan filed a petition for
resentencing under section 1172.6 and requested appointment of
counsel. The trial court appointed counsel for Saakyan. After
further briefing from both parties, and without holding an
evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that Saakyan was
ineligible for relief as a matter of law because the record of
conviction showed that he was the actual shooter and had a
specific intent to kill.
       Saakyan then appealed. We appointed counsel to represent
Saakyan, and his appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues
and requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently
review the record for error pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court
established procedures for cases in which counsel determines
that an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief lacks
merit. In such cases, “(1) counsel should file a brief informing the
court of that determination, including a concise recitation of the
facts bearing on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court
should send, with a copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the
defendant, informing the defendant of the right to file a
supplemental letter or brief and that if no letter or brief is filed
within 30 days, the court may dismiss the matter.” (Id. at
pp. 231-232.) If the defendant does not file a supplemental brief,
we “may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.” (Id. at p. 232.) In
that instance, we do “not need to write an opinion but should
notify the defendant when [we] dismiss[ ] the matter.” (Ibid.)

                                 3
Because a defendant who has been denied postconviction relief
has no constitutional right to an appeal, we are not required to
conduct an independent review of the record before dismissing
the appeal, but we may conduct such a review at our discretion.
(Id. at pp. 227-228, 232.)
       If the defendant does file a supplemental brief or letter, we
are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in
that brief and to issue a written opinion. The filing of a
supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent
review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.”
(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
       On June 16, 2023, we notified Saakyan by letter of the no-
merits brief filed by his counsel and informed him that he had 30
days to file a supplemental brief.4 At Saakyan’s request, we
granted him an extension to file his supplemental brief; we
received his brief on July 31, 2023.
B.     Saakyan Is Ineligible for Relief Under Section 1172.6
       Section 1172.6 was enacted by the Legislature in 2018 as
part of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). The overall
purpose of the legislation was “to amend the felony murder rule
and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates
to murder, to ensure that murder liability is not imposed on a
person who is not the actual killer, did not act with the intent to
kill, or was not a major participant in the underlying felony who
acted with reckless indifference to human life.” (Stats. 2018,
ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f).) To accomplish this, the bill added section

      4 In a declaration submitted with the brief he filed,
Saakyan’s counsel averred that he sent Saakyan a copy of
counsel’s brief along with a copy of the entire record on appeal.

                                  4
189, subdivision (e) “to amend the felony-murder rule,” and added
section 188, subdivision (a)(3) “to amend the natural and
probable consequences doctrine.” (People v. Gentile (2020) 10
Cal.5th 830, 842-843.) Senate Bill No. 775 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
later expanded section 1172.6 to allow persons convicted of
attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences
doctrine to apply for resentencing. (Stats. 2021, ch. 551, § 2.)
       As relevant here, section 1172.6 provides a mechanism for
a defendant to seek resentencing where (1) an information was
filed against the defendant that allowed an attempted murder
prosecution to proceed under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine, and (2) the defendant could not now be
convicted of attempted murder under the present law. (§ 1172.6,
subd. (a).) Saakyan does not meet this eligibility test, because he
was not prosecuted based on the natural and probable
consequences doctrine. Instead, Saakyan’s attempted murder
prosecution and subsequent convictions were based solely on him
being the actual shooter. In its verdict forms, the jury expressly
found to be true that Saakyan committed each of the five
attempted murders willfully, deliberately and with
premeditation, and that he personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm as part of each attempted murder.
       Saakyan is therefore ineligible for resentencing under
section 1172.6, and the trial court did not err in summarily
denying his resentencing petition. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 233; People v. Patton (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 649, 656-657.)
Saakyan’s supplemental brief does not deny he was the actual
shooter; it does claim that Saakyan “had no inteant [sic] or
premeditation to kill anyone” and provides an alternative history

                                5
of why he shot at the five victims.5 That is not sufficient for relief
in light of the jury’s express findings that Saakyan acted with
premeditation and personally and intentionally shot at the
victims. Section 1172.6 is a legislative act of lenity that provides
a resentencing procedure to give defendants serving otherwise
final sentences the benefit of changes to applicable criminal laws;
it does not provide a mechanism for a new trial. (Estrada v.
Superior Court (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th. 915, 925.) The version of
events in Saakyan’s brief (which the jury clearly rejected) does
not raise a cognizable issue on appeal because “ ‘[n]o factfinding,
weighing of evidence, or credibility determinations’ were or are
necessary here” given that Saakyan is ineligible for relief because
“ ‘[t]he record of conviction irrefutably establishes as a matter of
law that’ [Saakyan] was convicted as the actual perpetrator of the
attempted murder. [Citation.]” (People v. Patton, supra, at
p. 658.)
       Finally, we decline counsel’s request that we independently
review the record, as nothing before us suggests such an exercise
is necessary. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

      5 Saakyan’s supplemental brief also criticizes actions by the
prosecutor and defense attorney in his case. Those criticisms are
not relevant to Saakyan’s eligibility for relief under section
1172.6 and we therefore do not address them.

                                  6
                          DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order denying Saakyan’s petition for
resentencing is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                          WEINGART, J.

We concur:

             ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

             BENDIX, J.

                                7