Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Sumstine

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1984No. Crim. 23438Published

1Dissent

BIRD, C. J., Dissenting.

I write separately because under the law a court must grant a motion to strike a prior if the record of that prior does not comply with Boykin-Tahl.

Presiding Justice Stone so ably pointed out why this is so in his opinion in the Court of Appeal. The relevant portion of his opinion is as follows:

“[P]rior to Boykin-Tahl the law in California held that if an accused person was represented by counsel at the time of a guilty plea it was presumed that counsel informed him of his constitutional rights in absence of evidence to the contrary[. T]he burden on [the] defendant to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re TahlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. In Re YurkoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Salazar v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. People v. GuevaraAppellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API