Filed 3/11/21 P. v. Gyulnazaryan CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F077631 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CF04906532) v. MIKAEL GYULNAZARYAN, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Michael G. Idiart, Judge. Lisa A. Smittcamp, District Attorney, and Galen Rutiaga, Chief Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Offices of Anthony P. Capozzi and Anthony P. Capozzi, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Mikael Gyulnazaryan successfully vacated his conviction pursuant to Penal Code1 sections 1016.5 and 1473.7. The district attorney appeals, arguing neither section was satisfied and section 1473.7 was improperly invoked. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2005, Gyulnazaryan pled no contest to transporting methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) and admitted a related firearm possession enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (c)). He was sentenced to serve three years in state prison. Upon completing the three-year sentence, Gyulnazaryan was apparently detained by the federal government and eventually deported. He returned to this country in 2014 and immediately contacted his current counsel. In 2017, he filed a motion to vacate his conviction “based on the fact that [he] was not advised of the immigration consequences” by the court “as provided [in] … section 1016.5.” In 2018, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which both Gyulnazaryan and his original trial counsel testified. Both were subjected to cross-examination by the district attorney. Prior to the hearing, the district attorney orally opposed the motion under section 1016.5, acknowledged there were “several [other] mechanisms” for relief including section 1473.7, but argued he was not prepared to address any avenue other than section 1016.5. The court overruled the district attorney and proceeded with the evidentiary hearing. Original trial counsel testified first, explaining, “My first time meeting [Gyulnazaryan] was on that same date that the change of plea was done.” Counsel first “filled out the [plea] form at [the] counsel table.” He then “went outside and informed [Gyulnazaryan] of the proposed offer and idea behind the change of plea.” He also reviewed the preliminary hearing transcript, particularly noting the absence of an interpreter at that hearing. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2. Trial counsel believed Gyulnazaryan was a United States citizen because he needed “to go to the social security.” Counsel described explaining the plea form to Gyulnazaryan as follows: “I summarized the form. I would say glossed over would be the best way to describe it.” He agreed with the district attorney “that the exposure would be high if” the case proceeded to trial, and the proposed offer was a favorable resolution. In trial counsel’s professional estimation, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals