Crosby

People v. Crosby

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 220·3 Cal. App. 4th 1352·5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 159·92 Daily Journal DAR 2594
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1992A052177California882 words

Opinion

Opinion

Merrill, 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, § 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 to these offenses in an earlier proceeding.

Crosby pied not guilty to the robbery charge in the instant case and denied the allegations of prior felony convictions. He subsequently withdrew his plea, pied guilty to robbery, and admitted the prior felony convictions but reserved the right to challenge their constitutionality.

Thereafter Crosby moved to strike the prior felony convictions, which motion was denied. Crosby was sentenced to the lower term of two years for the robbery and an additional five years for one of the prior felony convictions. The court struck the remaining prior felony conviction on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.