People v. Smith
212 Cal. App. 4th 1394
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- This is a consolidated appeal from the denial of Smith’s petition for conditional release as an SVP under the SVPA and his habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The central issue is whether amended provisions allow an SVP to seek relief under both §6605 and §6608 for either conditional or unconditional release.
- Smith filed a 2009 petition for conditional release based on a favorable 2009 annual examination; the court treated it as §6608 proceedings.
- A 2010 evaluation recommended unconditional release, but the proceedings remained under §6608, with trial evidence and rulings proceeding under that framework.
- The court ultimately denied relief, and on appeal the court recognizes that §6605 should have governed the petition because the relief sought was conditioned on the examiner’s recommendation.
- The court also finds that Smith’s counsel provided ineffective assistance by not requesting a §6605 hearing, given the amended statute allows either form of relief under either section depending on the examiner’s recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §6605 apply to petitions for unconditional and conditional release post-2006 amendments? | Smith: §6605 covers conditional release when favored by examiner's report. | People: §6605 remains limited to unconditional release, §6608 handles conditional release. | Yes; §6605 applies to both unconditional and conditional relief. |
| Did counsel's failure to seek a §6605 hearing constitute ineffective assistance? | Smith's counsel should have requested §6605 given the examiner’s recommendation. | State: counsel’s strategic choice cannot be faulted; §6608 could be used. | Yes; ineffective assistance—counsel failed to pursue §6605. |
| What remedy is appropriate where §6605 should have governed the petition? | A new §6605 hearing is required to satisfy constitutional protections and proper burden. | Remedy unclear; not specifically addressed. | Remand for a new §6605 hearing consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. George, 164 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (interprets SVPA provisions and the interplay of 6605 and 6608)
- People v. Landau, 199 Cal.App.4th 31 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (annual report and director’s authority to authorize petitions)
- People v. McKee, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (constitutional protections and timely release of SVPs)
- In re Jones, 13 Cal.4th 552 (Cal. 1996) (Strickland-based ineffective assistance framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)