Court Opinion

ID: 9746115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:00:05.593236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:08.922892
License: Public Domain

WOODS, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority that the defendant did not meet his burden in challenging the validity of his alleged robbery *1608conviction and therefore the trial court erred in striking it. I also agree with the disposition: reversal and remand, allowing defendant to withdraw his guilty plea if he chooses to do so.
But unlike the majority I would not reach the Custis issue. The question of whether a defendant may collaterally challenge an alleged prior conviction on grounds other than denial of counsel is of far reaching importance. Our Supreme Court, in addressing this question, limited its holding to capital offenses. (People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 906 P.2d 478].) Because defendant’s motion and proof were both inadequate— requiring a denial of his motion—we need not, and I would not, address the Custis issue.