*1 No. 22540. Mar. [Crim. 1983.] PEOPLE,
THE Plaintiff and Respondent, MILLER,
RAYMOND JAMES Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel Denvir, Quin Defender, State Public the Court of Ap- under appointment Ramirez, Defender, and Carlos State Public for Defendant peal, Deputy *3 Appellant. General, Philibosian,
George Deukmejian, Robert H. Chief Assistant Attorney General, General, Attorney Arnold O. Overoye, Attorney Gregory Assistant General, W. Wanda Baugher, Attorneys Hill Rouzan and James Ching, Deputy for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion BIRD, C. J. case concerns the of the harmless error doc- applicability This trine to an to Penal appeal pursuant (m). Code section The raised is whether the entire of conviction must be reversed when the some, admitted erroneously evidence was directly relevant to but all, counts to which the accused pled guilty.
I. In the early morning hours of December Peter Winston Officer a patrolling residential neighborhood of marked Stockton his police He cruiser. had been assigned to a recent investigate series house burglaries that had occurred in that area. Most of the involved similar means burglaries The entry. burglar used a wrench to and break the lock of the door pipe garage gain entry to house. a.m.,
At 1:30 approximately Officer car Winston saw the of a small taillights westbound traveling on Stanfield Street. He became because it suspicious traveling very slowly along the,road. the extreme right-hand When edge car would come upon curb, another car that was to the it would parked parallel drive around that vehicle and return curb line.
Winston followed aat distance of 50 to 70 car yards. headlights were extinguished as the car turned northbound. It traveled another yards and car, stopped. officer pulled behind the shined a on it and up spotlight turned on his red light let the driver know should not move. Winston, after back over looking his shoulder the driver made
U-turn with his car. When the officer ac- ordered him to the driver stop, celerated. Winston followed quickly and turned his siren. Immediately, driver his car over pulled to the curb. brother-in-law,
Appellant’s Jonathan was the driver of the car and Sorling, was the sole appellant A consensual search of car passenger. disclosed a loaded under the handgun side of the front passenger seat. Winston also recovered a screwdriver, pair needle-nose pliers, and a 10-inch flashlight wrench. arrived, After pipe additional officers both appellant Sorling transported station. police station, interview at the
During stated that he had seen Sorling of a sawed-off possession at a certain shotgun address. Two officers ac- police There, companied Sorling location. the officers with Louie spoke Coultres, who told him that he had sublet a attached to recently washroom his apartment appellant. *4 encounter, this
Following one of the officers an affidavit in prepared support warrant, of a search relating statements made and Coultres. The by Sorling affidavit did not contain any information as an reliability pertaining Sorling’s informant. A search warrant was issued and executed later that In the day. washroom, the seized police a sawed-off and other numerous items shotgun stolen in recent reported burglaries.
Sometime events, after these was released from appellant custody. On police 25, 1980, January Officer Bruno was Christopher the Stockton patrolling in neighborhood which the wrench “pipe had occurred. Bruno burglaries” knew that was a appellant in the cases and that and misdemeanor suspect felony had warrants been issued for his arrest.1 a.m.,
At 3:50 approximately Officer Bruno observed a 1967 Oldsmobile sedan driving very West Lane. When the officer looked at the slowly along per- car, son the driver ducked. Bruno car turned driving followed as the south- bound and at a red The officer noticed that the stopped light. taillights Oldsmobile were not He also concluded that was the functioning. appellant driver of the car.
After the traffic turned Bruno continued to follow the Olds- light green, mobile. He How- the car to on his overhead red signaled by turning light. stop ever, accelerated, the Oldsmobile drove and made several through stop sign turns. other Finally, Two cruisers in the quick police joined pursuit. Oldsmobile was forced to collided with intentionally when a cruiser stop police car, it into a ditch of the road. pushing side along from the driver’s of the car. A search
Appellant side emerged pat-down revealed a loaded a holster under left arm. handgun police appellant’s felony charged appellant receiving 1The warrant with property, stolen while the misdemeanor charged weapons him with a offense. warrant back also wrench from the right seized a screwdriver and a flashlight, pipe a closed Officer Bruno looked into the car through pocket appellant’s pants. noticed under the driver’s window and a sawed-off shotgun protruding vehicle, seat. After the officer to search obtaining appellant’s permission needle, also found a under the floor mat and a hypodermic syringe hypodermic and bindle of white (later determined to spoon powder methamphetamine) the glove compartment. in a 22-count information with 11 counts of second
Appellant (Pen. Code, 459),2 4 an ex-felon in degree burglary posses- counts being § (§ 12021), sion of a firearm and 1 count each of stolen receiving property Code, (§ 496), (Bus. unlawful of a & Prof. possession hypodermic syringe 4143), Code, (Health 11377) of a possession & Saf. dangerous drug § § Code, (Veh. reckless driving 23103). §
Pursuant to section moved to the evidence seized appellant from his rented the affidavit under- police washroom on the ground the search warrant did not lying He affidavit inadequate. argued contain facts as a “noncitizen-informant.” establishing Sorling’s reliability motion, After the trial court denied the negotiated plea suppression *5 bargain with the agreement prosecution.
Under the terms this six bargain, appellant pled guilty burglary 4, 6, (counts 7, 9, counts 10 and 11). Of the six one was burglaries only directly linked by at the testimony examination to stolen items preliminary recovered from the washroom.3 Three of the to which burglaries pled had taken after the place date of the washroom search. also Appellant to one firearm pled guilty related offense from the December 21st ar- resulting (count 14) rest and three firearm related offenses from the arrest arising 25, (counts 1980 January 17-19). In for these exchange pleas guilty, dismissed the prosecution of the information. counts remaining
II. The concedes that the trial mo prosecution court erred in denying appellant’s tion to the evidence seized from the rented washroom. Since suppress “citizen-informant,” not a to be established Sorling his had reliability either that he had in the by showing reliable information to given police or corroboration v. by of his claims of criminal Smith past activity. (People statutory 2All references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. testimony preliminary by from the linked at the property 3Stolen seized washroom was also dismissed firearm burglary to five of the counts and four of the
examination dismissed violations. 397, 557]; 845, 553 P.2d (1976) 17 Cal.3d 850-854 Cal.Rptr. [132 419]; Peo 336-340 (1969) 71 Cal.2d Cal.Rptr. Scoma [78 171].) The (1980) 178-180 Cal.Rptr. v. Schmidt 102 Cal.App.3d ple [162 as to Sor warrant was silent totally submitted in of the search affidavit support Therefore, it was insufficient. constitutionally reliability. ling’s committed Thus, whether the error this case is issue raised only of conviction. the entire judgment reversal of the trial court requires deemed harmless error The state contends that the should il in the the evidence discovered counts which were “unrelated” to as to those search.4 legal decision in with this court’s of the state’s contention must begin
Analysis
There,
393, 528 P.2d
v. Hill
There were two bases for the in Hill that error doctrine the harmless holding inapplicable. first was “the magnitude consequences (Id., 769.) at plea.” p. court that an accused’s in- explained plea volves the waiver of “several of most fundamental constitutional rights” [the] and may have extreme the loss of one’s .... consequences, liberty “including Consequently, only interference, most can justify any reasons compelling however with an slight, accused’s decide whether to prerogative personally stand trial or waive his rights by (Id., 767-768.) at Im- pleading guilty.” pp. in this plicit reasoning was the notion that in a decision as critical as making whether or not to offenses, to the plead guilty an accused must not be encumbered erroneous on his motion ruling evidence. suppress
The second justification for the holding in Hill was the “lack of an adequate basis” for evaluating of a trial on a impact court’s error defendant’s deci- sion (Id., to plead guilty. 769.) This court reasoned that when an p. appellate court determines that the trial evidence, court refused to erroneously suppress altered, “the situation is no matter how from that which existed slightly, prior guilty.” (Id., at 768.) The harmless error concept inap- “[tjhere because propriate is no simply means of the im- intelligent assessing of a pact particular erroneous refusal (Ibid.) evidence.” A decision to strategic enter into a particular only hinges strength case, prosecution’s but also effectiveness upon probable of the defenses and exculpatory (Ibid.) available to the accused. these matters normally cannot be determined the record when no trial taken Therefore, has place. the Hill court recognized “[a]tier evidence, exclusion of certain items of continue to prosecution’s may invulnerable to an appear [Yet], court .... defendant *7 or believe he has of means doubt on such impeaching, discrediting or casting evidence, and the items excluded on be the which might ones appeal very posed the most difficult strategic for the the problems defendant. accused and his Only counsel are aware of what favorable (Ibid.) evidence is available to them.” circumstances,
Given these this court in an concluded Hill appellate tribunal could not arrive at an accurate of whether the “consistently assessment defendant would again plead after but all guilty that some knowledge an unacceptable To the contrary, evidence is to be suppressed.
challenged
the
itself into
applica-
would necessarily inject
degree
appellate speculation
omitted.)
fn.
(Ibid.,
error
in such a context.”
tion of the harmless
concept
to an
is
that the harmless error concept
inapplicable
Hill's holding
1538.5,
v. Rios
(m)
reiterated in
under section
case,
5,
the defendant was
In that
The court further evil of attempt explained, “[t]he derives from the of this case udice which an accused suffer in the posture in an effort to engage in which the court is compelled speculation suffered by measure the . . . Because we cannot prejudice determine prejudice. be entitled to without in speculation, defendant engaging impermissible ruled had the court properly he would have enjoyed restored to position 358-359.) (Id., in the first instance.” the motion pp. United States (See, Rios. e.g., are in accord with Hill and
Other jurisdictions
a “well-
to Hill as
(1st
1981)
F.2d
562 [citing
v. Weber
Cir.
F.2d
1977) 562
(7th Cir.
considered”
Jones v. State
opinion];
of Wis.
entered
a guilty plea
of its holding reversing
445-446
to Hill
[citing
support
identification].)
in-court
admitted
erroneously
following
In People
well.
this issue
analyzed
The New York Court of
has
Appeal
257, 264],
N.Y.S.2d
380 N.E.2d
(1978)
Nevertheless, the state that the error doctrine should argues harmless apply It this case. is contended that Hill and in those Rios are because distinguishable cases the tainted evidence was relevant to all of the counts to which the defen- contrast, dants some of the pled guilty. By counts to which appellant pled guilty were not connected to evidence admitted the trial court. erroneously
However, this ais distinction without a difference. The of the disposition “unrelated” counts was not the “related” that of independent charges. and the entered Appellant prosecution into one which bargain agreement resolved all twenty-two counts the information. The bargaining positions determined, parties of all the in- part, by strength aggregate evidence criminating accumulated the state. Appellant undoubtedly nego- tiated for what he believed was the best could obtain disposition given the trial court’s denial of his motion. well suppression This objective may Hill, led him to to plead guilty “untainted” as well as “tainted” counts. As in the denial of the motion to evidence have influenced may appellant’s decision to agree negotiated plea bargain.
Indeed, the record does not indicate that other factors motivated any appellant to enter his guilty Nor does it pleas. disclose what defenses or evidence ap- addition, pellant on his behalf. In capable producing suppressing evidence challenged alters the from that bargaining positions parties which existed case prior negotiation agreement. prosecution’s is against weakened and some of appellant the counts have to dis- well, missed.6 For these reasons as this court is unable conclude that ap- would have pellant of the same the trial agreed absent court’s guilty pleas erroneous on the ruling motion. suppression
The state relies on v. Punchard (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d its contention that the support harmless error rule should be 366] prosecution’s 6The respect is weakened with to both the “tainted” and “untainted” Obtaining counts. convictions on the “tainted” charges becomes more difficult because directly probative appellant’s guilt is now inadmissible. Suppressing the evidence also has effect on the trial of the “untainted” offenses. General- ly, jury apt is more convict an accused of if that he commit- offenses it believes has (See Witkin, Evidence, (2d 1966) ted other crimes. Cal. Evidence ed. Circumstantial § Here, 299.) if prosecution prove ap- absent the inadmissible evidence the cannot at trial that offenses, pellant jury may likely the “tainted” be less to believe that propensity had the criminal to commit the “untainted” counts.
554 here. After trial applied the court failed to evidence erroneously suppress Punchará, the defendant pled to one count stolen receiving property. In accordance with the terms of the two other plea bargain, receiving counts stolen property were dismissed. conviction, Court of affirmed the that the Appeal holding
items found the search relevant to the dismissed during illegal only (Id., Punchard, 998-999.) counts. at In the court asserted that the “defen pp. dant to a count to which no and to pled guilty there conceivable defense appears ” which the (Ibid., error in to failing had no connection and no effect. fn. omitted.)
This First, is flawed in two reasoning Punchará’s con- significant respects. assertion clusory that the defendant had “no conceivable in the defense” flies face of Hill’s an is unable to from a recognition'that court determine appellate blank record what defenses and evidence were available to an Second- accused. the ly, Court of that the trial court’s error had “no effect” Appeal’s assumption on the defendant’s decision to the the unrelated count plead guilty ignores fact that the was entered as of an all agreement part involving above, counts of the information. As decision to defendant’s explained agree that well been particular bargain may affected the cumulative ante, strength (See on all the at prosecution’s charges. evidence Hill, 552-553.) Punchará is and this pp. inconsistent with the rationale of Rios and, therefore, opinion, is disapproved.7
Not is the under only harmless error rule the state proposed inappropriate Rios, the rationale of will Hill and but it An court is also not practical. appellate not be able determine usually seemingly from the record even the confidently matter of whether or to which simple not connection exists between the counts the accused and the evidence. pled guilty admitted erroneously that Hill controlling 7The state Hill suggests also claims that footnote 36 of the opinion footnote, present case. In for that the court observed that is no basis whatsoever “[flhere concluding that the we are murder items which hold to be inadmissible in fact unconnected to the Indeed, or would be conclu prosecution’s against opposite irrelevant to the case defendants. sion seems unavoidable.” ap Several reading factors indicate that the state is into this statement. The footnote too much solely that the pears purpose rebutting to have been for the written dissent’s assertion erroneously court could not determine from record whether the admitted (Id., Clark, (conc. J.).) “extremely incriminating.” opn. dis. addition, In tainted applied of whether the rule would have had the harmless error Hill court. obviously evidence been only charges relevant dismissed not before the Hill’s opinion Finally, inability ap- did not of an given emphasis resolve issue. plead pellate tribunal to determine from a blank factors motivated an accused record what Hill intended one. guilty, improbable ruling it is its like exempt present cases These factors state’s 36. undermine the reliance on footnote Consider 4 of the This count involved count as present example. *10 At the seven the search washroom. burglary occurring before days examination, had been ransacked the victim testified that house his preliminary from the that had been evidence seized and stolen. schedule of jewelry a did the vic- washroom contained for not ask listing jewelry. prosecution burglary.8 tim whether this found the taken the during was jewelry by police were Nor other victims asked to the any burglary identify jewelry. had
What additional evidence have introduced ap- the would prosecution case to The prosecu- trial is this court’s pellant’s proceeded beyond knowledge. had no at the tion to its entire obligation against case present appellant trial, examination. the well have elicited At a preliminary may prosecution from of her testimony the victim the seized to the burglary linking jewelry Thus, state, it house. even under the the would by harmless error rule proposed 4 to determine or of to count impossible whether appellant’s the tainted prejudiced by evidence.9 what Finally, the state to the en- fails is that a recognize reversing disposition tire and judgment the to the is fair to the returning prosecu- status parties quo tion, as well as the re- accused. As this court “the of concept has explained, v. Collins ciprocal benefits” critical to the (People plea bargaining process. state, 21 Cal.3d 1026].) “The ” entering . . . plea bargain, a certain ultimate result. generally contemplates (Id., 215.) The state to a may be to have the accused seeking subjected certain term or a prison number of particular convictions.10 appellant 8ProbabIecause to hold to answer for this burglary police based on a officer’s testimony that appellant’s fingerprints lifted burglary were from the scene. 9The same respect is true with appellant’s plea of guilty burglary to count 6. This was com days mitted four the examination, before search of the washroom. At the the preliminary victim testified that she returned home to prosecution find her house the ransacked. did not whether property ask recovered appellant’s had been from her washroom stolen home. Since not all the items listed by in the schedule of for seized evidence accounted victims, burglary trial, the other may the possibility not be that prosecution discounted at a the would have connected some tainted count 6. addition, In even disposition the involving burglaries occurring of the counts the date after the search been prejudiced the illegally seized evidence. all of the Almost burglaries that appellant was charged committing with occurred in the same residential neighborhood and entry. involved similar means Consequently, prosecution’s the illegally use of the case with property seized bolster its respect to the “contaminated” burglary likely counts was conviction to make of the “untainted” easier. jury appellant counts Once the believed burglaries, had the “tainted” it committed apt would have been more to find appellant of the other counts because of the similarities involved. example, prosecution’s objective 10For the record in present indicates agreeing six-year prison was to ensure that term. served
If the harmless error rule the state were the “related” suggested by adopted, counts to which the accused would be reversed and the “unrelated” pled guilty counts affirmed. This would the benefit disposition deprive prosecution of its while bargain, state bound to the won ac- keeping dismissals contrast, cused. By the entire disposition reversing returning status parties would with the quo provide prosecution option either for a result renegotiating similar to the one or originally sought going trial on all the counts.
III. To a apply harmless error rule in this would court this require engage in the same of found to be type speculation in Hill and Rios. impermissible Therefore, is entitled to appellant have the of conviction vacated and judgment elects, set aside. If pleas so the state reinstate all the appellant may Hill, contained in the original charges (See information. v. 12 supra, Hill, 769.) However, Cal.3d at as in is “not. . . foreclosed appellant . . . to be bound electing] . . not by and . judgment[ subjecting] ] on trial the original (Ibid.) charges.” [himself] reversed and the cause remanded to the court. That superior court is directed to vacate the if an mo- makes pleas appropriate event, tion within 30 after days this final. In that the court opinion becomes should information, reinstate the contained in the if the state so original charges moves, and to trial or make other in accor- proceed appropriate dispositions dance with the views If filed expressed this no such motion is opinion. by ap- the trial court pellant, is directed to reinstate the original judgment. Kaus, J., Broussard, J., J.,* Zenovich, J.,* (W. R.), con Woolpert, curred.
KAUS, J. which, concur in and have the Chief Justice’s I signed opinion I believe, is foreordained by (1974) v. Hill 12 Cal.3d 767-769 [117 correct, 528 P.2d In the Hill Cal.Rptr. has led to some past, logically 1]. bizarre, but rather 16 Cal.3d practically reversals. Rios (E.g., People 13,500 seized, [5,000 taken tablets legally 293] is, reversed].) to one count of for illegally; plea sale possession problem course, that a followed a successful under section guilty plea (m) of the Penal Code does not an assessment permit prejudice.
*Assigned by Chairperson of the Judicial Council. solution, it me one for a Pending legislative occurs to way prosecutor avoid reversals is to before is entered in- unnecessary stipulate, plea bargain to, evidence, that certain the seizure of which be will upheld appeal, course, not be used if the case were to to trial. It is but a go only guess, safe one that if in the case at bar there had been a pretty stipulation items seized in the washroom the counts would not be offered at the trial—and on them dependent dismissed—there would to a still have been plea bargain number of counts and that the meted out to defendant would not punishment have been materially different. course,
I may, which is suggesting something already routinely taking so, in our trial place courts. If I apologize.
RICHARDSON, J. view, defendant, dissent. In respectfully my having I to several pleaded guilty counts which are unrelated to those counts wholly which are “tainted” erroneous should not be suppression ruling, permit- ted to withdraw his pleas former counts because he suc- merely appealed *12 from cessfully convictions the latter counts. the
Although have conceded that the evidence obtained during search of the washroom should have been ordered most of the suppressed, to which charges based, defendant were in in pleaded guilty not either whole or Indeed, that evidence. part, upon the record indicates that one only undismissed was burglary charge based evidence which was in upon discovered the course of, of, or aas result whether, illegal search. The before issue us is important circumstances, under such defendant is entitled to a reversal of his conviction as counts, to all and an to opportunity withdraw his to those guilty counts. pleas Defendant’s to right review of the convictions entered his upon pleas guilty is (m) based necessarily of section 1538.5 of upon the Penal Code. As we recently (m) “Subdivision constitutes an acknowledged, exception rule that all errors to a are arising entry of prior guilty plea waived, those which except or of the jurisdiction legality pro- ceedings. 891, Lilienthal 22 Cal.3d (People [Citations.]” [150 706]; Code, 587 P.2d Cal.Rptr. see Pen. 1237.5.) In sub- pertinent part, § division (m) that “A defendant provides seek further review of the may validity aof search or seizure on from a conviction in a criminal case not- appeal the fact that withstanding such of conviction is predicated upon plea Such guilty. review on be obtained the defendant providing that at some of the stage he to conviction has moved for the proceedings prior return of or the property of the evidence.” suppression
In of the light of a motion foregoing statutory prerequisite prior evidence or return it seems to me that authorization of property, apparent
review (m) under subdivision extends to those which were only based charges construed, upon assertedly unlawful search or seizure. Reasonably subdivi- (m) sion does of all suspend finality entered a defendant guilty pleas in a multicount but those which have proceeding, only been pleas charges previously a motion to challenged by suppress.
Defendant asserts that of a guilty because his pleas plea bargain, part should be to withdraw all those the ones permitted including pleas, relating those counts which are “untainted” obtained wholly evidence. by any illegally (m) however, Subdivision does not create such and the right, applicable cases have allowed a withdrawal of if related to pleas only pleas charges previously motion. challenged by suppression
Thus,
v. Hill
(1974)
All at issue in related to to which Hill defendants charges *13 and we in Hill pleaded guilty, said that defendants would have nothing suggests Indeed, been to withdraw to their unrelated we permitted charges. pleas observed in Hill for specifically that “There is no basis whatsoever concluding that the items which we hold to be inadmissible are in fact unconnected to the murder or would be against irrelevant to defendants prosecution’s .... inference . . . tend to in- seems that such items inescapable [T]he murder. criminate defendants and aré ‘connected’ to the To conclude therefore ” to otherwise is of defendants. engage unfounded speculation expense 767, Thus, if, (P. 36.) fn. Hill stands for the on appeal, clearly proposition it is that a have determined motion to been granted defendant’s should suppress at least in defendant his with will be to withdraw part, permitted guilty plea v. to evidence also Rios any charges (See People which such relates. respect 351, 5, (1976) 16 Cal.3d [unlawfully 357-359 Cal.Rptr. 293] [128 entered]; obtained evidence related on which v. People to count guilty plea 912, 125].) (1979) 93 915-916 Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [156 Salazar cases of some nexus have uniformly recognized Subsequent requirement and on which the unlawfully between the obtained evidence the charge (1981) 635-636 was based. v. 118 plea (People Cal.App.3d [173 Martinez
559 counts]; related Cal.Rptr. to dismissed v. Nagdeman 554] [evidence (1980) 110 412 related to un Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [168 16] [evidence offenses]; Punchard Cal.App.3d related to counts].) dismissed 366] [evidence Punchará, There, supra, is particularly instructive. as of plea bargain, part the defendant to one count of two pleaded guilty stolen receiving property; other receiving counts were dismissed. Defendant had moved to previously and, certain evidence suppress connected to the dismissed counts from the conviction following his he contended that the foregoing plea, evidence should have been ordered The court held that the ad- suppressed. issue missibility was rendered “moot” reason of the of the counts dismissal to which the 998-1000.) related. As the court ex- (Pp. plained: “Defendant forwent the risk of conviction under counts II and HI by pleading guilty count He I. to have been presumed aware possible HI, defense to counts H and and his claim of error in the court’s recognized failure to suppress evidence. Yet he chose to the risks of forego asserting such defense as he Rather, had. defendant chose to seek a certain dismissal of counts H and IH by bargaining away his contest count I. right
“Nor is the matter one of pure defendant was gamesmanship; thoroughly ap- that in prised I, bargaining his away right to contest count he was une- quivocably that he admitting did in fact the crime [sic] commit charged.
“He cannot now reasonably challenge of his and his validity pointing possible defenses he have asserted as to the dismissed might counts. Defendant knowingly willingly forwent such and cannot defense[s] raise them 999-1000, now.” (Pp. italics in original.) Punchará
Although does not discuss the its could be point, holding equally sustained on the that, above, alternative basis as discussed Penal Code section (m), does not authorize review following guilty which charges were not challenged by motion to prior *14 evidence. Those are final pleas and unreviewable.
It is argued that had defendant known at the time of his plea bargain ultimate merit of his earlier motion to he not have entered into suppress, might or offenses, pleaded guilty the various and that accordingly should now be permitted withdraw his in toto. bar- pleas Every plea however, gain, a careful requires tactical weighing various considera- tions, including possibly meritorious defenses which have been asserted might Punchará, at trial or on As appeal. supra, the defendant in such a explains, situation cannot claim Moreover, or any of the facts. as we surprise ignorance seen, has Legislature chosen to restrict review of convictions
based to those to which a motion to upon guilty pleas charges suppress prior was directed.
Thus, I would court on re- reverse and direct the trial part mand to defendant to offense or of- withdraw his permit guilty pleas any fenses to which his was related. Because the prior motion have not reinstatement of which were dismissed as requested part charges I would not reach whether reinstatement such plea bargain, Hill, (See would rescission of a proper upon partial plea bargain. 731, 769.) 12 Cal.3d supra,
Mosk, J., concurred.