People v. Shubaralyan CA2/2, B332920

Karlen Shubaralyan, a long-time U.S. legal permanent resident originally from Armenia (formerly the Soviet Union), was charged with 10 felonies, including domestic violence and forcible rape, while already under deportation proceedings related to an earlier grand theft case.
In 2016, on the advice of counsel, Shubaralyan pled no contest to one count of making criminal threats (while out on bail) as part of a plea deal for a five-year sentence, in lieu of pursuing trial on all charges.
Shubaralyan was deported to Armenia shortly after entering his plea.
He filed two motions to vacate his conviction under Penal Code section 1473.7, arguing his counsel misadvised him about the likelihood of deportation and that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences.
The trial court denied both motions, finding no prejudicial error because the record showed he was aware of the risk of deportation and had been so advised by his immigration attorney.
The current appeal is from the denial of his second motion to vacate, which the trial court treated as a reconsideration motion on its merits, notwithstanding the incomplete appellate record for the prior proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shubaralyan failed to meaningfully understand immigration consequences of his plea	He was aware of deportation risk, advised by counsel and forms	Counsel misadvised; did not properly understand consequences	Shubaralyan failed to show lack of meaningful understanding
Whether Shubaralyan can show prejudice (i.e., that he would have gone to trial or sought alternative plea if properly advised)	He provided no objective evidence he would have rejected plea; deal was favorable	He would have gone to trial or sought different plea if aware of deportation risk	No prejudice shown; evidence does not support assertion
Whether procedural default bars appeal (second motion after prior denial)	Incomplete record bars reconsideration; earlier denial final	New counsel, new evidence justify reconsideration	Court reviewed merits, but found no error
Whether trial counsel's advice constituted prejudicial error under § 1473.7	Any misadvice was not determinative; defendant had other info	Misadvice led to uninformed plea	Misadvice not prejudicial; independent understanding shown

People v. Vivar, 11 Cal.5th 510 (2021) (clarifies standard for prejudice and meaningful understanding under § 1473.7)
People v. Espinoza, 14 Cal.5th 311 (2023) (addresses totality of circumstances for showing prejudice in immigration-related plea cases)
People v. Mejia, 36 Cal.App.5th 859 (2019) (states elements for establishing prejudicial error under § 1473.7)
People v. Lopez, 83 Cal.App.5th 698 (2022) (explains corroborative evidence needed to show that defendant would have rejected plea)