People v. Codinha, No. D077651 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
Nature of Case: Appellant challenges lower court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant argues that, at the time of the plea, his attorney failed to advise him regarding whether a possible consequence of his plea included an indeterminate commitment as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”) at the end of any prison term.
Holding: The Court of Appeal concluded that Appellant did not meet the standard for demonstrating ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court stated that Appellant did not establish either that his attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance. In so holding, the Court stated that counsel was not obligated to advise Appellant that an SVP commitment was a possible consequence of his plea.