Supreme Court will address pre-plea right to be told of potential sexually-violent-predator commitment

At the Supreme Court’s conference yesterday, actions of note included:

• Pre-plea advisement. The court will hear In re Tellez, where a Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal published opinion held a defendant’s counsel didn’t render ineffective assistance by failing to advise that a guilty plea could lead to a lifetime civil commitment as a sexually violent predator after service of a prison sentence. This is the second grant of review in the case. Eleven months ago, the Supreme Court directed Division One to issue an order to show cause after the appellate court had summarily denied the defendant’s habeas corpus petition, even though the denial was explained in a detailed order. In the opinion, as in its earlier summary denial order, Division One relied on its own recent decision in People v. Codinha (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1047, of which the Supreme Court denied review. When the court first granted review in Tellez, we wrote, “Maybe Tellez is a better vehicle for the issue than Codinha. (See here.)” In November, the court heard a case — People v. Espinoza (see here) — about a defendant not understanding immigration consequences of a plea.
• Another ICWA grant-and-hold. In re M.G. is another grant-and-hold for In re Dezi C., where the court agreed last September to decide what constitutes reversible error when a child welfare agency fails to make the required inquiry under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act and state statutory law concerning a child’s potential Indian ancestry. In M.G., the Second District, Division Four, unpublished opinion found harmless error in an agency’s “fail[ure] to conduct an appropriate inquiry into [a mother’s sons’] possible Native American heritage.”
• Transfer from juvenile court. The court granted review in People v. Camarillo and sent the case back to the First District, Division Five, for reconsideration in light of Assembly Bill 2361, legislation enacted last year to require a juvenile court to find by clear and convincing evidence that a minor is not amenable to rehabilitation under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction before transferring the minor to adult criminal court and to require a transfer order to state the reasons for the court’s determination of unamenability to rehabilitation. Division Five issued an unpublished memorandum opinion (see here) that did not address the AB 2361 issue.
• Criminal case grant-and-holds. There were four criminal case grant-and-holds:  one each waiting for decisions in People v. Gray (see here), People v. Burgos (see here), People v. Lynch (see here), and People v. Salazar (see here).