The sex offender management program that is mandated as a condition of probation for sex offenders (Pen. Code, § 1203.067) was not a direct consequences of defendant’s plea and thus did not require a pre-plea advisement. Dillard entered a no contest plea to human trafficking of a minor (Pen. Code, § 236.1, subd. (c)). Prior to sentencing he moved to withdraw the plea because he had not been advised that the sex offender management program was required if probation were granted (Pen. Code, § 1203.067). His motion was denied and the trial court granted probation. Dillard appealed. Held: Affirmed. When entering a plea in a criminal case, a defendant must be advised of his constitutional rights and of the direct penal consequences of the conviction (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592). No advisement is required for collateral consequences. “A consequence is deemed to be direct if it has a definite, immediate and largely automatic effect on the range of the defendant’s punishment.” A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea based on the trial court’s failure to advise him of the penal consequences must show actual ignorance of those consequences and must demonstrate prejudice, i.e., that he would not have entered the plea had he been properly advised. However, the probation conditions at issue were not a direct consequence of defendant’s conviction because probation did not automatically flow from his open plea. Further, probation was an optional sentencing alternative that Dillard was free to reject. Finally, the sex offender management program is designed to foster rehabilitation and is not within the range of Dillard’s punishment or a sanction akin to punishment.

Even if the sex offender management program were deemed a direct consequence of his plea, defendant failed to show any prejudice from the trial court’s failure to advise him of this requirement. The trial court did not find Dillard to be a credible witness with respect to his reasons for asking to withdraw his plea. “There was no credible evidence presented that knowledge of the sex offender management program conditions would have caused defendant to forgo the open plea and indicated sentence.”

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/H042086.PDF