Defendant may collaterally attack an out-of-state prior conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds where the foreign State had “Tahl-like” requirements in place at the time of the plea. Opinion on rehearing. Gandy was charged with a number of offenses. Three prior Oregon convictions were alleged as strike priors. He moved to dismiss the Oregon priors on Boykin-Tahl grounds. His motion was denied and he pleaded no contest to several offenses and admitted one strike prior. He appealed and obtained a certificate of probable cause. Held: Affirmed. A defendant who pleads guilty may challenge his conviction on the ground the record fails to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of certain constitutional rights, i.e., the right to a jury trial, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238). The California Supreme Court in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, followed Boykin and established the further requirement that the record clearly show the defendant expressly waived his constitutional rights. A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds (People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909), unless the underlying plea preceded the decision in Tahl (People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424). Similarly, challenges to non-California pleas on Boykin-Tahl grounds are limited to jurisdictions in which “Tahl-like” requirements operated at the time of the plea. Oregon has a “Tahl-like” policy of requiring express, on-the-record admonitions and waiver of rights. However, the record of Gandy’s Oregon prior reflects he was properly advised via a written plea, which he affirmed he had read, signed, and understood. Based on the totality of the circumstances, his plea was voluntary and intelligent. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132).

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B264452A.PDF