Court Opinion

ID: 9725339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:42:12.343389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:14.306801
License: Public Domain

KING, J.
I concur. Present law requires the result we reach, but common sense, waste of precious public resources, and restraint in imposing frivolous trials on already overburdened trial courts, cry out for the Supreme *951Court to reexamine the law. Nowhere in the record,1 the briefs, or at oral argument was the claim made that Ray’s prior convictions were invalid. If there ever was harmless error, this is it. Yet a rule of per se reversal, even with absolutely no showing prejudicial error occurred, requires us to award a new trial to Ray because of a technical error. It is exactly this kind of decision which lessens public confidence in the judicial process.
The costs of transporting Ray from state prison to San Mateo County for trial, paying a lawyer to represent him, paying the costs of a jury trial and, undoubtedly, another appeal, constitute a gross waste of taxpayer dollars, since Ray makes no claim he could prevail upon a trial of the validity of his prior convictions. In addition to the needless financial cost, a heavily overburdened district attorney and trial court will waste time on a frivolous claim which could be better spent reducing the backlog of serious criminal cases.
In my view, the California Supreme Court should reexamine existing law and adopt a rule that the error in issue here is deemed harmless unless the defendant can show prejudice.
Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 30, 1990.

 At the time of entering the plea Ray’s counsel acknowledged “there is a factual basis” for the prior convictions.