Does the burden of proving a fact that may well have been irrelevant to the previous proceeding apply to a defendant who has previously pleaded guilty to a similar charge?

Guerrero involved a situation in which the burden was on the prosecution to establish that a prior conviction constituted a serious or violent felony for enhancement purposes. (See People v. Towers (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1273, 1277 [on the burden of proof in that context].) Although we need not decide the point here, it seems clear that a defendant who has the burden of proving a fact that may well have been irrelevant to the previous proceeding should not be prohibited from introducing new evidence. Defendants who resolved a case by plea would be especially prejudiced by a strict application of the "record of the conviction" rule. (Ibid.) For example, in this case there was no reason for either party to fix the value of the property stolen or the time of day of the offense when the plea was taken. (See People v. Bradford (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1333-1334 (Bradford) [noting that a prosecutor in a previous proceeding would have had no incentive to plead and prove factors not relevant to that case, but which would later become relevant to resentencing under section 1170.126].)⁶

Page 6