Legal Opinion

People v. Crosby

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 26, 1992No. A052177PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

MERRILL, Acting P. J.

In this case we decide that in accepting a guilty plea to a felony the trial court is not required to advise the defendant that his conviction may result in an enhanced sentence for a future felony conviction.

Procedural Background

Appellant Courtney J. Crosby was charged by information with robbery (Pen. Code, 1 § 211). The information also alleged that Crosby had suffered two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, rape (§ 261) and unlawful oral copulation (§ 288, subd. (a)). The prior convictions were the result of Crosby’s guilty pleas…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bunnell v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. In Re CarabesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
  3. Ganyo v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  4. People v. HartyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
  5. Hartman v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. People v. GuruleCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
  2. In Re ResendizCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. People v. BernalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  4. People v. ArnoldCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  5. People v. BarellaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API