People v. Gandy
Annotate this CaseDefendant entered a no contest plea, in which he admitted a prior strike based on three out-of-state state felony convictions. Before pleading no contest, he moved to dismiss the prior felonies on the ground that the convictions were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights under Boykin v. Alabama and In re Tahl. The prior felony convictions resulted from defendant's no contest plea in 2001 to burglary and robbery charges in Oregon. On appeal, defendant argued that he did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his Boykin-Tahl rights (the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination) when he pleaded no contest in the Oregon proceeding, and therefore the prior convictions cannot be used to enhance his sentence in this case. The court held that a defendant may not collaterally attack a prior out-of-state conviction without demonstrating that "Tahl-like requirements operated in the jurisdiction at the time of the plea." In this case, the court concluded that defendant failed to meet his burden. The court also found that defendant's plea was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.