People v. Tunyan CA4/1

── People v. Tunyan CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 P. v. Tunyan CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. DISPOSI