In People v. Maguire (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1022, the defendant pleaded no contest to five charges against him based on his attorney's advice that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction on all counts. (Maguire, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1024-1027.) The defendant appealed, contending he did not violate two of the five counts as a matter of law and he therefore received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to advise him of that fact, and failure to prevent him from pleading no contest to those counts. (Id. at p. 1027.) The Court of Appeal concluded defense counsel's performance was deficient. (Maguire, supra, 67 Cal.App.4th at p. 1030.) In further concluding the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's incompetence, the appellate court took note of defendant's assertion that, had he known of the legal insufficiency of the two counts, he "'would not have entered the plea to either count knowing the prosecutor could not prove the charges'" and "'would have demanded a trial despite the judge's sentence bargain.'" (Id. at pp. 1031-1032.) Of relevance here, the Maguire court rejected as "speculation" the People's argument that the defendant could not show prejudice "because, had a motion been brought, the charging document would have been amended to include other charges . . . ." (Id. at p. 1032.)