People v. Gandy, B264452A

Background

Defendant Anthony Gandy pleaded no contest in Oregon (2001) to two burglaries and one robbery; those convictions were alleged as prior strikes and serious-felony priors in his 2011 California prosecution.
Gandy moved in the California trial court to dismiss the Oregon priors under Boykin/Tahl, arguing he was not knowingly and intelligently advised or did not waive the enumerated constitutional rights when he pleaded no contest.
The Oregon record included a signed written plea petition that listed jury, confrontation, and self-incrimination rights and stated the plea was made "knowingly and voluntarily;" the plea colloquy in Oregon briefly confirmed Gandy had read and discussed the petition and had no questions.
The parties agreed on rehearing that Oregon law (Or. Rev. Stat. §135.385 and Oregon cases) imposed Tahl-like written/record advisement and waiver requirements; therefore Gandy could collaterally attack the out-of-state priors.
The sole remaining issue was whether, under the federal "totality of the circumstances" test, Gandy’s Oregon plea was voluntary and intelligent; the Court concluded it was and affirmed the judgment, leaving the priors available for enhancement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a defendant collaterally attack an out-of-state prior plea on Boykin/Tahl grounds?	People: Only if the convicting jurisdiction had Tahl-like requirements; otherwise finality bars attack.	Gandy: Oregon law has Tahl-like written/oral admonition and waiver requirements, so collateral attack is permitted.	Allowed: Oregon has Tahl-like requirements, so Gandy may collaterally attack his Oregon priors.
Was Gandy’s Oregon no contest plea involuntary under Boykin/Tahl (i.e., invalid for enhancement)?	People: The written plea form, attorney certification, and the court colloquy show a voluntary, intelligent waiver under the federal totality test.	Gandy: The form did not expressly state he was waiving rights by pleading no contest; counsel and judge did not expressly advise of waivers; his declaration claims counsel told him just to sign.	Denied: Under the federal totality-of-the-circumstances test, the plea was voluntary and intelligent; priors stand.
Does reliance on a written plea form satisfy Tahl/Boykin requirements?	People: Yes — a validly executed written waiver, coupled with court inquiry that defendant read/discussed it, suffices.	Gandy: Written form was inadequate because it did not explicitly state waiver by pleading.	Held: Written form plus affirmative colloquy can establish voluntary, intelligent waiver; specific oral advisement not strictly required under federal test.
Can ineffective-assistance claims be used to collaterally attack priors in current noncapital prosecution?	People: Such claims are barred by Custis/Garcia for noncapital prosecutions; not a route to strike priors.	Gandy: (Raised ineffective assistance as factual background for involuntariness)	Held: Ineffective assistance cannot be used here to invalidate priors in current noncapital prosecution.

Key Cases Cited

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (requires record to show plea was voluntary and intelligent)
In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122 (Cal. requirement that Boykin rights be specifically and expressly waived)
People v. Sumstine, 36 Cal.3d 909 (procedural rule allowing collateral attack on priors raised at trial)
Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (limits collateral attacks on priors for enhancement claims; bars certain ineffective-assistance claims)
Garcia v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.4th 953 (applies Custis; bars collateral attack based on ineffective assistance in noncapital prosecutions)
People v. Howard, 1 Cal.4th 1132 (adopts federal totality test; supervisory rule favors on-the-record advisals but federal law governs validity)
People v. Allen, 21 Cal.4th 424 (limits Sumstine collateral attacks to post-Tahl pleas; discusses out-of-state priors)
People v. Green, 81 Cal.App.4th 463 (applies Allen concurrence: out-of-state priors may be attacked only if convicting jurisdiction had Tahl-like requirements)
People v. Mosby, 33 Cal.4th 353 (supports that totality test can validate pleas without explicit advisals in certain contexts)