1) IN THIS CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, I ASK THIS COURT TO FINALLY DECIDE WHETHER THE NATURE OF CIVIL COMMITMENT, ITS PROCEDURAL SIMILARITY TO DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, THE SEVERE PENALTIES ASSOCIATED THEREWITH, AND ITS INTIMATE RELATION TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS RENDERS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COLLATERAL AND DIRECT CONSEQUENCES INAPPLICABLE WHEN DEFINING THE SCOPE OF REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE OR DETERMINE WHETHER COUNSEL'S ADVICE PERTAINING THERETO IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF COMPETENCE DEMANDED BY DENS ATTONEYEE?

2) IN VIRGINIA, AS MOST STATES, CIVIL COMMITMENT HAS BECOME AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS WHEN A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH CERTAIN DEFENSES AND NUMEROUS NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FLOW AUTOMATICALLY FROM A CONVICTION THEREOF BY PERMANENTLY CATEGORIZED AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR, INCLUSION IN THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATOR DATABASE AND EVALUATION BY THE CIRCUIT REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL COMMITMENT; THEREFORE, SHOULDN'T A DEFENDANT BE APPRISED OF THIS CRITICAL ISSUE BEFORE HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY CAN BE CONSIDERED A VOLUNTARY, KNOWING AND INTELLIGENT ACT?

Whether civil commitment proceedings are sufficiently similar to deportation proceedings such that the distinction between collateral and direct consequences is inapplicable when defining the scope of reasonable professional assistance or determining whether counsel's advice pertaining to civil commitment is within the range of competence demanded of attorneys