Judges must warn violent sex crime defendants of civil commitment risks, justices rule

Trial judges must advise violent sex crime defendants about the consequences they might face, which include civil commitment proceedings, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

But that won't help Victor Raul Tellez, who argued that his public defender failed to inform him of those consequences when he pleaded guilty to a single count of a lewd and lascivious act on a minor in a plea deal. Following his release from prison in 2019, Tellez was immediately taken into custody for a civil commitment, where he remains.

Justice Kelli M. Evans, an appointee of Gov. Gavin Newsom, ruled that Tellez offered insufficient evidence that he would not have accepted the plea deal even if advised of the consequences and could not prove he was prejudiced by that failure.

But she said the court, exercising its supervisory powers, would instruct judges in future cases to instruct defendants of potential consequences of Sexually Violent Predator Act guilty pleas.

"Accordingly, we exercise our supervisory powers to require trial courts, where relevant, to inform defendants of the potential for SVPA consequences when pleading guilty or no contest to a qualifying offense," Evans wrote. In re: Tellez, 2024 DJDAR 8256 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Nov. 18, 2022).

Justice Goodwin H. Liu, in a concurring opinion joined by Evans, wrote that defense attorneys have a "constitutional duty to advise their clients of the SVPA consequences of a potential plea."

Tellez illegally touched three children at an El Cajon mall and was arrested, then charged with three counts of lewd and lascivious acts. He agreed to plead guilty to one count on the advice of his counsel, who "the available evidence corroborates" did not advise him of the possibility of civil commitment when his prison sentence was done. Tellez filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the attorney's failure to inform him was ineffective assistance of counsel.

Deputy Alternate Public Defender Anthony B. Parker said that failure violated his Sixth Amendment rights because Tellez pleaded guilty on the understanding that he would be released after three years, not possibly face a life in confinement under civil commitment. He compared the Sexually Violent Predator Act case to deportation cases and cited a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled defense attorneys must advise non-citizen defendants about the risk of deportation if they agree to plead guilty to a crime. Padilla v. Kentucky, 599 U.S. 356 (2010).

"What I'm asking the court to do is make this decision retroactive," Parker told the justices during oral arguments in June.

Deputy Attorney General Joy Utomi disagreed that the attorney's failure violated Tellez's constitutional rights. "The Sixth Amendment does not mandate every good practice or prescribe detailed rules for criminal defense attorneys to follow; rather, it sets a minimum standard of reasonable competence," she wrote in a brief.

Utomi and Parker agreed that the state Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory authority to tell judges to advise defendants in SVPA cases of future consequences if they agree to plead guilty.

"Although the Sixth Amendment does not extend so far as to obligate criminal defense counsel to provide advice about potential ... civil commitment proceedings, it would be prudent to ensure that criminal defendants are aware in general terms that pleading guilty to a qualifying conviction could lead to [SVPA] proceedings in the future," Utomi wrote.

Contra Costa County Deputy Public Defender Ellen E. McDonnell, who filed an amicus curiae brief for the California Public Defenders Association, had a mixed reaction to the ruling.

"We are grateful for the Supreme Court's acknowledgement that trial courts must explicitly advise individuals about the potential SVPA consequences of a plea," she wrote in an email. "It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court did not apply its ruling retroactively, which would have allowed for potential relief for those individuals who were not previously appropriately advised by the trial court about potential SVPA consequences of their pleas.

"Our office agrees with Justices Liu and Evans that the failure to advise individuals about potential SVPA consequences is ineffective assistance of counsel," McDonnell added. "SVPA consequences are incredibly draconian, and anyone facing them must have the opportunity to discuss them fully with their counsel."