Court Opinion

ID: 9563844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:48:08.478797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.680964
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J.
I dissent.
The amended information alleged that defendant had been formerly convicted of “residential burglary” and “attempted residential burglary,” within the meaning of sections 667 and 1192.7 of the Penal Code. The underlying documentary support for defendant’s prior guilty pleas also alleged “residential” burglary. Defendant was extensively voir dired by the court and, as to each admitted prior, the term “residential” was explicitly used.
At this late date defendant appears to be insisting he had his fingers crossed when he admitted that residences were involved in his prior crimes. We should not condone that type of gamesmanship.
I would reverse the Court of Appeal judgment for the reasons stated in my concurring and dissenting opinion in People v. Alfaro (1986) ante, pages 627, 637 [230 Cal.Rptr. 129, 724 P.2d 1154].
Lucas, J., and Panelli, J., concurred.