People v. Hughes CA6

DISCUSSION

First, defendant claims he was erroneously deprived of his right to counsel to represent him on the issue of whether he was eligible for resentencing. Second, he argues that the court erred in finding him ineligible for resentencing, because his Illinois conviction for criminal sexual assault was not a sexually violent offense as defined under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b). For the reasons set forth below, we reject both claims. 1. Right to Counsel Defendant argues he has a right to counsel under two theories. First, he argues that a resentencing petition is akin to a criminal sentencing, so he has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Second, he claims that he has a due process right to counsel, because he made a prima facie case for relief in his petition. We address his Sixth Amendment claim first. a. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel The Supreme Court has held that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment applies to all critical stages of a criminal prosecution. (Iowa v. Tovar (2004) 541 U.S. 77, 80-81; People v. Ebert (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 40, 44.) “ ‘The determination whether the hearing is a “critical stage” requiring the…