The California Court of Appeal has upheld the conviction of Hayk Khalatyan, affirming the denial of his motion to vacate his conviction or sentence. This ruling, filed on November 13, 2026, affects Khalatyan, who argued that he did not fully understand the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the standards for defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas based on claims of misunderstanding immigration impacts.

Khalatyan, who was granted asylum in the United States at a young age, faced serious legal challenges following a reckless driving incident in 2016 that injured two police officers. He was charged with multiple offenses, including assault with a deadly weapon, which he ultimately pleaded no contest to. His plea agreement allowed him to avoid a longer prison sentence, but subsequent probation violations led to complications regarding his immigration status.

The dispute originated from Khalatyan's plea in 2016, where he was informed that his conviction could lead to deportation. He later violated probation, which resulted in his total sentence exceeding one year, thus classifying his conviction as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Khalatyan contended that he did not understand the full implications of his plea and sought to vacate his conviction under California Penal Code section 1473.7, which allows defendants to challenge convictions based on prejudicial errors affecting their understanding of immigration consequences.

The court analyzed Khalatyan's claims and the circumstances surrounding his plea. The court noted that Khalatyan had initialed a plea form acknowledging the potential immigration consequences and that both he and his attorney had signed the form, indicating they discussed the plea's implications. Despite his assertions of misunderstanding, the court found that Khalatyan did not demonstrate sufficient prejudice resulting from any alleged errors in counsel's advice.

The court ruled, "regardless of whether plea counsel adequately advised Khalatyan about the immigration consequences of any future probation violations, he has not demonstrated prejudice."

The ruling was made by Justice Goorvitch, with concurrence from Acting Presiding Justice Chavez and Justice Richardson. The court emphasized that Khalatyan's criminal history and the nature of his offenses weighed against his claims of misunderstanding. The court also highlighted that Khalatyan's plea was structured to avoid immediate immigration consequences, and he failed to provide objective evidence that he could have secured a better deal.

This ruling has important implications for Khalatyan and others in similar situations. It reinforces the need for defendants to clearly understand the immigration consequences of their pleas and the burden they bear to prove that they were prejudiced by any misunderstanding. The court's decision also underscores the importance of having competent legal representation during plea negotiations.

Looking ahead, Khalatyan may still have options. While the current ruling affirms the denial of his motion to vacate, he could potentially explore other legal avenues or file a new motion if additional evidence arises. However, as of now, the court's decision stands, and Khalatyan remains subject to the immigration consequences of his conviction.