P. v. Koujababian

Filed 6/30/08 P. v. Koujababian CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jean P. Leonard, Judge. Affirmed.

Anita P. Jog, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant, Abraham Koujababian appeals following a guilty plea and a low term sentence to 18 months in state prison.

Background

Defendant, Abraham Koujababian, was arrested in a sting operation. A private watchdog group, Perverted Justice, employed persons who posed as under age minors on the Internet, to identify adults who prey on children. The police department worked in cooperation with the group. Defendant contacted a member of the group, who used an online profile of a 13-year-old girl. Defendant engaged in Internet chats with the imaginary girl and asked to meet her. Defendant was instructed to go to a location arranged by the Riverside Sheriffs Department where he thought he would meet a 13-year-old girl for a sexual encounter. Instead, he was arrested. He was charged with one count of attempting to commit a lewd and lascivious act upon the imaginary underaged girl, in violation of Penal Code sections 664 and 288, subdivision (a).^[1]

On February 21, 2007, defendant entered a plea of guilty to attempted lewd and lascivious act on a minor and was referred for a psychological evaluation and the sentencing recommendation pursuant to section 288.1. On May 11, 2007, defendant was sentenced to state prison for the low term of one year six months. He appeals.

Discussion

At his request, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [87 S.Ct. 1386, 18 L.Ed.2d 493], setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and requesting that we undertake an independent review of the entire record. We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error.

First, the record shows defendant was adequately advised of the rights being waived and the consequences of pleading guilty. There were no promises as to disposition based on the guilty plea. There is substantial evidence to support a finding that the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Further, any error in the selection of the principal term was waived by failure to object thereto. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351-354.) The selection of the low term was well within the trial court's discretion. ( 1170, subd.(b).)

We note that there was no restriction on the courts authority to place defendant on probation if that disposition was determined, in the exercise of the courts broad discretion, to be a proper judgment. Neither sections 1203, 1203.065, nor 1203.066, restrict the courts sentencing discretion where defendant is convicted of an attempted lewd or lascivious act, as opposed to a completed act. However, the trial court enjoys broad discretion in making its sentencing choices, and these choices will be affirmed unless there is a clear showing that the trial court's actions were arbitrary or irrational. (People v. Golliver (1990) 219 Cal. App. 3d 1612, 1616.)

Here, the court decided to reject the recommendation for a grant of probation after learning defendant had visited the same Internet chat room, engaging in the same behavior, that had given rise to the charges in this case. There was no abuse of discretion.

We have completed our independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

RiCHLI

J.

Publication courtesy of San Diego pro bono legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Poway Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]All further references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.