Opinion ID: 2588509
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Prior Conviction of Battery on a Peace Officer

Text: Defendant asserts a violation of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the California Constitution, because the trial court instructed the jury that evidence had been introduced to show defendant had four prior convictions (which the jury had previously determined), including battery on a police officer. (§ 243, subd. (c).) The jury was further instructed that before it could consider any alleged crime as an aggravating circumstance, it must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in fact convicted of the prior crime. Defendant now claims this instruction was error, because there was insufficient evidence the police officer suffered injury within the meaning of section 243, subdivision (c). A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction, but must overcome a strong presumption of constitutional validity. ( People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1013, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519.) Defendant has never established the invalidity of his prior conviction, and therefore the instruction was proper.