P. v. Almeda CA3
Defendant Anthony Michael Almeda contends the trial court erred by doubling his sentence based on a strike prior because, even though he was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the strike prior qualified as a strike. He also contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the validity of the strike and by failing to include in the plea agreement the option to file a motion to dismiss the strike if the court found it to be valid.
We disagree with defendant’s contentions and affirm the judgment. Defendant cannot challenge the strike prior’s validity or his trial counsel’s decision not to include in the plea a right to seek dismissal of the strike because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. He also has not shown his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by deciding not to challenge the strike’s validity.
Comments on P. v. Almeda CA3