Skip to content
Name: People v. Gandy
Case #: B264452
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/29/2017

Defendant is barred from collaterally attacking an out-of-state conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds where he failed to show that “Tahl-like” requirements operated in Oregon at the time of the plea. Gandy was charged with a number of offenses. Three prior convictions from Oregon were alleged as strikes. He moved to dismiss the alleged Oregon priors, on the ground he had not been expressly advised of nor waived his constitutional rights, as required by Boykin-Tahl and Oregon law. His motion was denied and he pleaded no contest to several offenses and admitted one prior strike. He appealed and was granted 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 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 each of his three constitutional rights. A defendant may collaterally attack a prior conviction on Boykin-Tahl grounds (People v. Sumstine (1984) 36 Cal.3d 909), limited to post-Tahl guilty pleas (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, which defendant here failed to show. Oregon does not require express, on-the-record admonitions and waiver of rights.

Defendant failed to show that his prior plea was involuntary under a totality of the circumstances. A plea will be upheld where the record affirmatively reflects that it was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132.) The Oregon plea form signed by defendant set forth his Boykin rights. Defendant acknowledged reading and signing the plea form and asked no questions regarding his plea. He informed the trial court he was entering his plea voluntarily and knowingly, and his attorney certified that the plea was voluntary. The record of defendant’s Oregon prior reflects his plea was voluntary under a totality of the circumstances.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: