ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING

hOn September 7, 2012, we granted the prosecution’s writ application, noting “The trial judge’s ruling, however, that the fact the defendant pled guilty to the 1999 robberies was inadmissible is in error.” Judge McKay, however, dissented, and Mr. Henderson, the defendant, on September 19, 2012, timely filed an application for rehearing.

We now grant the application for rehearing, and set aside our writ grant of September 7, 2012. We also now deny the prosecution’s application, which was filed *561on July 25, 2012. Thus, the ruling of Judge Zibilich about which the prosecution sought review is restored.

REHEARING GRANTED; WRIT DENIED

dissents and assigns reasons.

hi respectfully dissent from the majority’s grant of a rehearing and the reversal of our original disposition. The trial court erred in ruling that Mr. Henderson’s previous guilty pleas related to the 1999 robberies were not admissible. See La. C.E. art. 404(B)(1); State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126, 130 (La. 1973). Any prejudice to Mr. Henderson will occur when the State presents evidence of the prior armed robbery. Evidence of Mr. Henderson’s guilty plea would not cause such undue prejudice that it should not be admissible. See La. C.E. art. 403. Further, Mr. Henderson need not testify for the evidence to be admissible. See State v. Lawrence, 09-1637 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/25/10), 47 So.3d 1003.