Full Opinion

Filed 11/9/26 P. v. Vardazaryan CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F090270 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CMS-5363) v. VAGEN VARDAZARYAN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Melissa R. Lucero D’Morias, Judge. Vagen Vardazaryan, in pro. per.; and Justin Behravesh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and Guerra, J. A jury convicted defendant Vagen Vardazaryan, a state prisoner, of assault, and the trial court sentenced him to a concurrent 90-day term in custody. Defendant’s appellate counsel makes no claim of error and requests our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (See also In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97.) Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant facts of the case. Defendant was advised of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant provided a letter brief that recites a portion of the procedural history but raises no legal issues. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment. The following is a brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.) On July 21, 2021, defendant assaulted Vernon Cathey, a correctional officer at Corcoran State Prison. Defendant angrily came out of his cell, yelled at Cathey, accused Cathey of “fucking with his TV,” and struck Cathey in the chest with his shoulder. When Cathey pushed defendant away, defendant grabbed Cathey’s jumpsuit with both hands. Defendant resisted as Cathey attempted to take him to the ground. Defendant refused to let go of Cathey’s arm until other correctional officers successfully handcuffed defendant. The incident resulted in Cathey suffering an injury to his knee and a pinched nerve in his elbow. Defendant testified he left his cell to talk to Cathey because he believed correctional officers were altering his television program. Cathey immediately attempted to handcuff defendant and pushed him to the ground. Defendant testified that other correctional officers kicked him. The District Attorney of Kings County filed an information on April 28, 2022, charging defendant with battery by a prisoner on a non-confined person (Pen. Code, 2. § 4501.5) 1 and alleging that defendant had suffered two prior strike convictions within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12). Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied all allegations. Defendant’s jury trial commenced on February 20, 2024. The court declared a mistrial after the prosecutor elicited testimony that defendant invoked his right to counsel after the incident. Thereafter, on March 12, 2024, the jury acquitted defendant of battery by a prisoner on a non-confined person but convicted him of the lesser included offense of assault (§ 240). On April 5, 2024, the trial court sentenced defendant to 90 days in custody, to be served concurrently with the term he was already serving. The court also ordered defendant to pay a $100 fine, a $150 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 8, 2024. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel or any other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3.