People v. Tunyan CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085827 · 2026-05-28 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD301054
Trial judge: Kimberlee A. Lagotta
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Julia C. Kelety (author), Laurence D. Rubin, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:22Z · confidence low

The trial court denied the defense motion to dismiss the defendant's strike prior and sentenced him to four years in prison for burglary, grand theft, and vandalism. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to dismiss strike prior “counsel has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal, namely whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense motion to dismiss Tunyan’s strike conviction.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The appellate court stated it independently reviewed the record and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively declining to address the specific merits of the motion to dismiss the strike prior.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel files a Wende brief.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify arguable issues and the court to independently review the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies the Wende/Anders framework and states that an independent review was conducted. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why the identified issue (denial of the motion to dismiss the strike) was not arguable, relying solely on the conclusion that no errors were found.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

A jury convicted Armen Tunyan of burglary, grand theft, and vandalism arising from a crowbar break-in at a wine store; he admitted a 2017 carjacking strike, the court denied his motion to dismiss the strike, imposed the middle term doubled to four years, stayed the remaining counts under section 654, and ordered $50,336.93 in joint-and-several restitution. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Tunyan filed nothing, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defense motion to dismiss Tunyan's prior strike conviction (Romero motion), identified by counsel as the sole possible Anders issue “whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense motion to dismiss Tunyan’s strike conviction.”	abuse of discretion	correct	unsure The opinion correctly identifies abuse of discretion as the governing standard for a motion to strike a prior under the Three Strikes law, but it recites no facts about the trial court's reasoning, the age of the 2017 carjacking, or Tunyan's background. Given a 2017 violent felony strike and a 2023 commercial burglary with a codefendant, a denial is well within the range of reason, but the opinion itself gives too little to confirm independently.
Judgment of conviction and sentence (middle term doubled, section 654 stays, restitution) reviewed under independent Wende/Anders examination of the whole record “We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Tunyan on this appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the required Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issues brief with an Anders-style possible issue, the defendant was given the chance to file a supplemental brief and declined, and the court independently reviewed the record. The brief factual recitation (eyewitness, 911 call, stop with stolen bottles and tools, owner's testimony on value and damage) supports the convictions, and the middle term doubled by the strike with section 654 stays is facially lawful. Nothing in the opinion suggests the court misapplied Wende, though its summary gives little to verify restitution or the strike ruling.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, which the court then evaluates.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion follows the Wende/Anders procedure faithfully, offers the defendant a chance to brief, identifies the standard of review for the one flagged issue, and affirms after independent review, which is a defensible result on the facts recited. It does not, however, cite Romero or Carmony or explain even briefly why the strike denial was within discretion, so the reader cannot verify the court's conclusion on the only issue counsel raised.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Tunyan CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085827

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD301054) v.

ARMEN TUNYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In the early morning hours of October 30, 2023, an employee heading to work at a nearby store observed two masked men using a crowbar to pry open the front doors of Wine Connection, a wine and liquor store. The employee called 911. The employee then saw the men leave the store, carrying duffel bags, which they placed in a car and drove away. Responding officers located the vehicle a short time later with two occupants. Armen Tunyan was driving. Tools, masks, gloves and dark clothing were found in the back seat. An inventory search revealed numerous bottles of expensive wine and spirits in the trunk. The owner of Wine Connection testified to the damage to the doors, and inside the store, where glass cases had been smashed to gain access to the bottles within them. The owner also testified to the value of the bottles that had been taken or damaged, as well as the cost to repair the damage inside the store. Tunyan and his codefendant were charged with burglary, grand theft of personal property, and vandalism. The complaint also alleged that Tunyan had suffered a strike prior for a 2017 carjacking in violation of Penal Code section 215.1 A jury convicted Tunyan and his codefendant of all three counts. Tunyan waived his right to trial as to the strike prior allegation and admitted the strike prior. The court sentenced Tunyan to the middle term of two years, doubled to four years for his strike prior as to count one, and stayed counts 2 and 3 pursuant to section 654. The court ordered Tunyan and his codefendant to pay restitution, jointly and severally, to The Wine Connection in the amount of $50,336.93. Tunyan appeals. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Tunyan the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2 its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified one possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal, namely whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defense motion to dismiss Tunyan’s strike conviction. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Tunyan on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

KELETY, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12