Towers

Christopher Hendrix Towers appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first degree burglary. Towers contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he sustained two prior serious or violent felony convictions for purposes of the “Three Strikes” law. We reverse the Three Strikes finding as to one of those convictions, for violation of Penal Code section 288a, but affirm as to the other finding, and remand for further proceedings, including a new trial on the strike if the prosecution so chooses.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 2005 a jury convicted Towers of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) 1 The trial court found true allegations that Towers had suffered two previous serious felony convictions for purposes of the Three Strikes law. (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d).) Those were a 1984 Tennessee conviction for second degree burglary (Tenn. Code Ann., § 39-3-401), and a 1989 California conviction for oral copulation. (Former § 288a, subd. (c).) 2 Towers contends there was insufficient evidence to find that either conviction qualified as a serious (§ 1192.7) or violent (§ 667.5)…