Appellant was convicted of being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm, and the trial court found two prior “strikes” to be true. Appellant moved to strike one of the prior strikes, based on the fact that the charge had originally been dismissed pursuant to a Penal Code section 995 motion, that appellant had pled no contest to the charge, and that there had not been a factual basis for the plea. The trial court struck the strike, and the prosecutor appealed. Here the appellate court reversed the order striking the strike. Once appellant entered the no contest plea, the elements of the offense and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the offense were established. Reliance by the trial court on the pre-plea rulings concerning the sufficiency of the evidence was an abuse of discretion.