In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 582 (4th Dist. Oct. 27, 2011) (sex offender registration requirement does not constitute constructive custody for purposes of habeas corpus jurisdiction in California).

In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 582, 590 (4th Dist. Oct. 27, 2011) (petitioner is not in custody, for purposes of attacking a 1997 conviction, even though he is in current constructive custody as a result of later convictions for failure to register as a sex offender based on the registration requirement imposed as a result of the 1997 conviction).

In In re Douglas, 200 Cal.App.4th 236, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 582, 590-91 (4th Dist.

Practice Advisory. State no-plea diversion programs in which a defendants confession is not placed in the court file do not constitute convictions for immigration purposes under the statutory definition of conviction. INA 101(a)(48)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(48)(A). The admission of facts referred to in this statute must mean an admission to the court, rather than to the prosecutor. It is possible, however, for an ICE attorney to ask the prosecutor for a copy and try to use it in removal proceedings to establish a conviction.

People v. Ventura, 17 N.Y. 3d 675 (App.Ct. Oct. 25, 2011) (it is improper to dismiss a criminal appeal solely because the appellant was deported while the appeal was pending, since the appellants defendants did not voluntarily abscond[], forfeiting their right to appeal.: Ventura and Gardner were involuntarily removed from the country and their extrication lacked the scornful or contemptuous traits that compel courts to dismiss appeals filed by those who elude criminal proceedings.).

Summary. It is unnecessary to the validity of a guilty or no contest plea to identify the exact controlled substance, as long as the defendant admits that the substance s/he possessed is on the appropriate California controlled substances schedules. People v. Guy (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 593, 601, 165 Cal.Rptr. 463 (knowledge of the character of a controlled substance means that the defendant knew it was a controlled substance, but s/he need not have known its precise chemical composition); People v. Garringer (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 827 [121 Cal.Rptr.

Elizondo-Vasquez v. State, __ S.W.3d ___, 2011 WL 4916610 (Tex. App. Oct. 18, 2011) (where defense counsel informed the defendant that the plea might impact his immigration status, and advised him to consult an immigration lawyer, but in fact, the plea resulted in mandatory deportation, defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective, rendering the plea of guilty involuntary, requiring reversal for a new trial).

Elizondo-Vasquez v. State, __ S.W.3d ___, 2011 WL 4916610 (Tex. App. Oct. 18, 2011) (commenting on the prosecutions concession on appeal of reversible Padilla error :We note that it is the primary duty of all prosecuting attorneys, including any special prosecutors, not to convict, but to see that justice is done. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.01 (West 2005). Admirably, in this circumstance, the State has not only recognized the futility of blindly opposing what appears to be settled law, it has fulfilled its primary statutorily-imposed duty to see that justice is done in this case.

Commonwealth v. Morris, 281 Va. 70, 705 S.E.2d 503 (Va. 2011) (state habeas was the exclusive vehicle to assert Padilla ineffectiveness claim in Virginia, so that petitioner who was no longer in custody and outside of the habeas filing deadline was unable to make Padilla claim in any forum).

In re Lucero, 200 Cal.App.4th 38, 132 Cal.Rptr.3d 499 (3d Dist. Oct. 24, 2011) (defendant did not unreasonably delay in filing habeas corpus petition, where he filed the petition within 10 months after the judicial decision on which the claim was based became final for all purposes when the time within which a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court must have been filed).