Commonwealth v. Arman R. Gevorgyan.

── Commonwealth v. Arman R. Gevorgyan. ── Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court Date: May 19, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008). COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT 25-P-516 COMMONWEALTH vs. ARMAN R. GEVORGYAN. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0 The defendant was charged by complaint on July 10, 2019, with one count of indecent assault and battery on a person fourteen or older. G. L. c. 265, § 13H. His motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause was denied, as was a motion to reconsider that denial. On April 25, 2022, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation for a term of three years. He was ordered to stay away from and have no contact with the complainant, to undergo a mental health evaluation and participate in any follow-up treatment, to undergo a sex offender evaluation, and to register with the Sex Offender Registry Board. The defendant's probation was terminated on August 13, 2024, after his motion for early termination of probation was allowed. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea, which was denied without a hearing. He filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which was also denied without a hearing, and he has now appealed. Although the defendant makes several arguments about the inadequacy of the plea colloquy and ineffective assistance of counsel, his primary argument is that there were not sufficient facts upon which to base a conviction of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen.1 We agree. During the change of plea hearing, the prosecutor recited the following facts. In June of 2019, the nineteen year old complainant was working a scheduled shift at an ice cream shop. The defendant was one of the owners of that business. The complainant and the defendant were the only two people at the location at that time. The complainant's hands got cold in the process of cutting frozen fruit, and she was leaning against the counter to warm them up. The defendant walked up to her and asked her what was wrong. She stated that her hands were cold. 1 The defendant does not raise any separate arguments regarding the denial of his motion for reconsideration, and we therefore do not address it further. 2  The defendant reached out, took her hands in his, and began rubbing his hands over her hands and fingers. He then began blowing on her fingers to warm them up. The defendant was close to her personal space, and while he was rubbing her hands, he removed his right hand and began to rub her back. Out of nowhere, he stepped even closer to her, grabbed her forcefully with both of his hands, and attempted to pull her into him and kiss her. She pushed him back and asked what he was doing. She was extremely alarmed. He said that he was sorry and then began rubbing her back again. He then grabbed her, forced her into a hug, and kissed her cheek on the right side of her face. Discussion. A postconviction motion to with