Opinion
B327484
04-25-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUSINE AKOPYAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. GA110689, Dorothy L. Shubin, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CURREY, P.J.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2022, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Lusine Akopyan with two counts of second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) While Akopyan was being represented by a deputy public defender, the trial court granted the prosecution's request to add a charge of accessory after the fact. (§ 32.) Akopyan then waived her trial rights and pled no contest to that charge.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Akopyan on formal probation for two years, subject to various terms and conditions. The court agreed that, if Akopyan avoided committing any new offenses and completed her assigned community labor, the conviction would be reduced to a misdemeanor, and her probation would become summary probation for the final year.
Two months later, Akopyan sought to withdraw her plea. The Public Defender's office declared a conflict of interest, and the court appointed an attorney to represent Akopyan.
The defense filed a motion to withdraw the plea, alleging Akopyan's former counsel was ineffective in advising her to plead. The motion asserted counsel did not read the preliminary hearing transcript, did not file a motion to dismiss under section 995, and failed to adequately advise Akopyan before urging her to accept the plea agreement. The prosecution filed an opposition, stating (1) the record did not conclusively demonstrate defense counsel failed to review the preliminary hearing transcript; and (2) even if counsel failed to review that transcript, counsel did not provide ineffective assistance in advising Akopyan to accept the plea. In support of the latter point, the prosecution noted defense counsel had the discovery provided in the case, and advocated effectively on Akopyan's behalf, presenting arguments to the prosecutor that led to the prosecutor agreeing to resolve the case with a plea to a section 32 offense.
Following a hearing, the court denied the motion, finding a lack of good cause to grant it. The court noted, among other things, that in light of the preliminary evidence presented, it would have denied a section 995 motion. The court also noted Akopyan's counsel effectively negotiated an agreement to drop the robbery charges and potentially reduce the matter to a misdemeanor, mitigating Akopyan's possible criminal liability.
Akopyan timely appealed the ruling and requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court granted the certificate.
We appointed counsel to represent Akopyan, and on October 12, 2023, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Akopyan did not respond to our letter advising her of her right to file supplemental briefing. Following our review of the record pursuant to Wende, we affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following information is taken from the testimony presented at Akopyan's preliminary hearing.
A man was seen by Walmart loss prevention employees placing items from the store into a black backpack. He then proceeded to the cash register where he joined Akopyan, who was checking out and paying for items. The two walked out of the store with neither having paid for the items in the backpack. Two loss prevention employees followed them, identified themselves, and asked to speak to them about the unpaid merchandise in the backpack. The man and Akopyan kept walking. When neither stopped, both employees grabbed the backpack. In response, Akopyan pushed the arm of one employee and grabbed the arm of the other. The two employees disengaged, then Akopyan and the man proceeded to a nearby car, which Akopyan drove away.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied no arguable issues exist. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278279; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: COLLINS, J., ZUKIN, J.