In what circumstances will a defendant's trial counsel not seek to exclude prior convictions for drug possession from the evidence?

In this case, there is evidence that defendant's trial counsel made reasonable tactical decisions in not seeking to exclude the prior convictions. (See People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 436-437.) The defense's theory of the case was that defendant possessed the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia for personal use, and defense counsel elicited testimony from defendant to establish that he had been using methamphetamine for 35 years. In short, defense counsel's goal was not to show that defendant was completely innocent of any crime but simply that he did not intend to sell the drugs. During defense counsel's closing argument, he argued that the physical evidence "absolutely show[ed] personal use" but did not "have anything to do with sales." Because two of defendant's prior convictions were for drug possession and defendant had no prior drug trafficking convictions, defense counsel may have reasonably decided that the drug possession convictions were helpful to establish that defendant was a drug user rather than a dealer. Further, because of the charge in count

Page 13