Opinion ID: 867293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Constitutional Requirements: Boykin v. Alabama

Text: ¶ 13 Pleading guilty to a criminal offense has significant consequences. As the Supreme Court has explained, a plea of guilty is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts; it is itself a conviction; nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment. Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (citing Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927)). Because, a defendant waives several constitutional rights when pleading guilty  including the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, the right to proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the opportunity to confront accusers  the trial judge, to satisfy due process concerns, must ensure that the defendant understands the rights being waived and enters the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Id. at 242-43, 89 S.Ct. 1709. ¶ 14 Allen acknowledges that he did not enter a guilty plea. Nonetheless, he argues, because he stipulated to most of the elements of the crime of possession of marijuana, the court should have advised him of his rights before reading the stipulation to the jury. But stipulations to facts combined with not guilty pleas are simply not equivalent to a guilty plea for Boykin purposes, even if the stipulation is to all elements necessary to a conviction and even if it might appear to a reviewing court that the stipulation serves little purpose. Adams v. Peterson, 968 F.2d 835, 842 (9th Cir.1992); see also Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 188, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004) (finding defense counsel's statements to jury conceding defendant's guilt not the functional equivalent to a guilty plea). The constitution does not compel a full Boykin colloquy in the absence of a formal guilty plea. See Adams, 968 F.2d at 841; see also id. at 845 (Kozinski, J., concurring) (observing that Boykin established a prophylactic rule rather than a constitutional requirement). Thus, Boykin does not require a colloquy in this case.