(1) Does constitutionally effective assistance of counsel require defense counsel to advise a defendant that a guilty plea may subject the defendant to commitment proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6600 et seq.; SVPA)? If so, did petitioner in this case suffer prejudice? (2) In the alternative, should this Court, in the exercise of its supervisory powers (see, e.g., People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1175; Bunnell v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 605), require that a defendant be advised that a guilty plea may subject him to SVPA commitment proceedings? If so, is petitioner entitled to relief? (Questions restated and review expanded on 1/25/2023.)

Held:

The CSC exercises its supervisory powers to require trial courts going forward to inform criminal defendants of the potential consequences under the Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) of a guilty or no contest plea. Under the SVPA (W&I § 6600 et seq), a person who has been convicted of a qualifying sexual offense linked to a diagnosed mental disorder may be civilly committed to a state hospital for treatment upon completion of the person’s prison term. Tellez argued his counsel failed to provide him with effective assistance by not informing him of the potential SVPA consequences of his guilty plea. The CSC found Tellez had not demonstrated prejudice, and therefore, did not consider whether a failure to advise of SVPA consequences would constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. However, because commitment under SVPA constitutes a significant deprivation of liberty, and a defendant should be made aware of the possibility of its commitment, the CSC requires trial courts going forward to explicitly advise criminal defendants of the potential SVPA consequences when they plead guilty or no contest to a qualifying offense or when the court is aware that a defendant has previously been convicted of such an offense and is pleading guilty or no contest to a new offense.

This case was decided on 8/26/24. The majority opinion was authored by J. Evans.

Justice Liu filed a concurring opinion indicating that he would have resolved the underlying issue and held defense counsel have a constitutional duty to advise their clients of the SVPA consequences of a potential plea and stated it should be made clear that civil commitment under SVPA should be classified as a “direct” consequence of conviction.