P. v. Rostomyan
Filed 7/17/06 P. v. Rostomyan CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RIMA ROSTOMYAN, Defendant and Appellant. | B181533 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA 057783) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Janice Claire Croft, Judge. Affirmed with modifications.
Elizabeth A. Missakian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Sharon E. Loughner, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Rima Rostomyan was charged with one count of using false documents to conceal her true citizenship (Pen. Code, § 114) and one count of conspiracy to use false documents (Pen. Code, §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 113, 114).[1] The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that she is an Armenian citizen who came to America on a 30-day visa in 1999, and then remained illegally in this country. In 2003, assisted by her daughter-in-law, she used false identification and marriage documents, in applying for permanent resident status. Pursuant to a plea bargain, she pled no contest to violating section 114. She was sentenced to three years of formal probation, with jail time equal to the time she had already served.
Appellant contends that the plea proceedings violated her federal and state rights to due process, because (1) there was an inadequate waiver of some of her constitutional rights, (2) the trial court improperly promised her benefits prior to obtaining her waiver of constitutional rights, and (3) the trial court should have ordered an evaluation of her competency to stand trial.
We reject appellant's contentions, and affirm.
DISCUSSION
1. Validity of Waivers
For a guilty plea to be valid, there must be an affirmative showing that the defendant understood the nature and consequences of the plea, and waived the privilege against self-incrimination, the right of trial by jury, and the right of confrontation. (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Pretrial Proceedings, §§ 268-271, pp. 477-482.)[2]
Even if there were â€
