Opinion
B330075
01-03-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAREN KOSHKARYAN, Defendant and Appellant.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. PA099186-01, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
This is an appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Finding no error, we affirm.
A jury convicted appellant Karen Koshkaryan of second degree burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459. Koshkaryan waived jury trial on the allegation under Penal Code section 1170.12 that he had a prior strike conviction and on two aggravating sentencing factors under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(3), (4). The trial court found the strike allegation true, along with the two sentencing factors. At sentencing, the trial court denied appellant's motion to strike the prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced Koshkaryan to the middle term of two years in state prison, doubled to four years because of the strike prior. Koshkaryan filed a timely notice of appeal.
On September 28, 2023, counsel for Koshkaryan filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende, asking this court to independently review the record for error. On September 29, 2023, the court advised appellant of his right to file a supplemental brief on issues he wants the court to consider. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief.
The evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of two witnesses. Alfred Sardarbekians testified that on September 1, 2022, at around 8:30 a.m. he parked his locked Chevy Trailblazer on a street near his place of employment. At around 3:30 that afternoon, one of his co-workers told him to check his car because one of the car windows was broken. He did so, noticed the broken rear window and a rag on the ground outside the passenger side of the car. He saw that his mechanical tools on the rear seat of the car were all gone. He returned to work where the owner of the business showed him a surveillance video on his cell phone, which depicted a man stepping out of a Dodge van and breaking the Trailblazer's window with a piece of metal, protecting himself with the rag found outside the Trailblazer. The man leaned into the car, removed the tools from the back seat, and threw them into the van.
Sardarbekians also reviewed surveillance video from a neighboring tire store which showed the same event. Sarbekians took screenshots from the tire store videos on his cell phone. Sardarkbekians reported the theft to the police the same day.
On October 7, 2022, Sardarbekians was driving in the same area and saw what he believed to be the same Dodge van depicted in the videos of the burglary. He flagged down a passing police car and showed the officer the screenshots on his phone. The officer wanted to see the videos of the actual burglary, so Sardarbekians took him to his employer and to the tire store. The videos were not available for viewing. The officer returned to the location of the van, which he saw was being driven away. The police pulled the Dodge van over and asked Sardarbekians to look in the van for his tools. He did so and did not see them.
Officer Yannick Jackson testified. He was the officer whom Sardarbekians flagged down. Sardarbekians said he was a victim of a burglary and the Dodge van was involved in the crime. Jackson asked Sardarbekians to take him to Sardarbekians's place of employment and the tire store so he could view the videos. Jackson was unable to view the videos but viewed the screenshots on Sardarbekians's cell phone. Jackson returned to the location of the Dodge van, which was now moving. He pulled the van over because it had no license plates and arrested appellant, who was driving the van. In the van Jackson found a glove under the driver's seat, similar to the glove depicted in the screenshots Sardarbekians had shown him. Appellant was also wearing a shirt that matched the shirt the burglar was wearing in the photos and Jackson testified appellant resembled the man in the screenshots he saw.
We have examined the record and are satisfied appellant's counsel fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GRIMES, J. VIRAMONTES, J.