Opinion ID: 2521459
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Howard's Totality of the Circumstances Test

Text: After our 1992 decision in Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315, our Courts of Appeal have applied its totality of the circumstances harmless error test to a variety of cases ranging from no advisements or waivers to incomplete advisements and waivers.
Truly silent-record cases are those that show no express advisement and waiver of the Boykin-Tahl rights before a defendant's admission of a prior conviction. ( People v. Stills (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1766, 1769-1771, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 [without any rights advisements or waivers the defendant was asked if he admitted priors]; see also People v. Campbell (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 305, 309-310, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 315 [after conviction by jury on the substantive offense, the defendant, who received no admonishments and gave no waivers, admitted each of four alleged priors]; People v. Moore (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 411, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 286 [after conviction by jury on the substantive offense, the defendant, who received no admonishments and gave no waivers, admitted a prior conviction of assault with a deadly weapon and a prior prison term].) Although the record was not entirely silent in People v. Johnson (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 169, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, it was so nearly silent as to be indistinguishable from the three cases just cited. A jury convicted the defendant of three crimes, but before the jury was excused the trial court took the defendant's admission to having two prior convictions and having served a prior prison term. The court did so without admonishing the defendant of his right to a trial on the priors at which he could confront witnesses and need not testify. ( Id. at p. 177, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650.) The court made a fleeting reference to `whether or not you want a jury trial,' and without waiting for a response, the court then immediately asked the defendant, `[W]ere you convicted?' The defendant admitted the priors. ( Ibid. ) Under the totality of circumstances, the Court of Appeal in Johnson had no doubt that the defendant was in fact aware of his right to a jury trial, his right to confront witnesses, and his right to remain silent, all of which he had just exercised in trial. ( Id. at p. 178, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d 650.) Nonetheless, absent any advisement of those rights, the Court of Appeal concluded that it was impossible to determine whether the defendant not only was aware of these rights, but also was prepared to waive them as a condition to admitting his prior offenses ( ibid. ), thus rendering the defendant's admission of the priors neither intelligent nor voluntary. In all of the cases just discussed a jury trial on a substantive offense preceded the defendants' admissions of prior convictions. These defendants were not told on the record of their right to trial to determine the truth of a prior conviction allegation. Nor did they expressly waive their right to trial. In such cases, in which the defendant was not advised of the right to have a trial on an alleged prior conviction, we cannot infer that in admitting the prior the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived that right as well as the associated rights to silence and confrontation of witnesses.
In People v. Carroll (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 892, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 868, the defendant was advised of his right to a jury trial on four prior conviction allegations. Trial on those priors was ordered bifurcated but eventually not held because a mistrial was declared after the jury could not reach a verdict on one of the charged crimes. At the defendant's second trial, there was no discussion of the priors until after the jury returned a guilty verdict. At sentencing, defense counsel said his client was willing to admit two priors. The trial court asked the defendant if he wanted to waive his `right to a trial' and admit `those allegations are true?' ( Id. at p. 896, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 868.) The defendant replied, `Yes.' ( Id. at p. 897, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 868.) The Court of Appeal reversed, describing the record as devoid of any meaningful effort to ensure the defendant was making an informed decision. ( Ibid. ) It acknowledged, but did not apply, the totality of the circumstances test of Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315, which it said permitted finding error harmless where technical defects have occurred in the giving of Boykin-Tahl admonitions. ( Carroll, at p. 897, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 868.) Incomplete advisement of Boykin-Tahl rights also occurred in another Court of Appeal decision, People v. Howard (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1660, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 103. At the conclusion of a jury trial on a drug offense, the defendant was advised of, and waived, the right to have a jury or court trial on a prior prison term allegation, but he was not told of, and did not waive, the rights to silence and to confront witnesses. On the record, the prosecutor told the defendant that at a trial on the prior conviction the People had the right to present evidence. ( Id. at p. 1664, fn. 3, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 103.) On appeal, a majority of the court concluded that the defendant had not been admonished as to his rights to confrontation and self-incrimination explicitly, or in terms amounting to a reasonable substitute for explicit admonition, thus requiring reversal and remand for retrial of the alleged prior. ( Id. at p. 1665, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 103.) The dissenting justice was of the view that having been told of the prosecution's right to present evidence the defendant was adequately advised of both the right to remain silent and to confront the witnesses against him. Having just participated in a jury trial, the dissenter concluded, the defendant understood what a trial meant. ( Id. at p. 1666, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 103 (conc. & dis. opn. of Woods (Fred), J.).) In People v. Torres (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1073, 1083, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, also written by the author of People v. Howard, supra, 25 Cal.App.4th 1660, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 103, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for retrial the findings that the defendant had suffered prior convictions and a prior prison term. In Torres, a jury had just convicted the defendant of several crimes when he was advised of his right to a jury trial on the alleged priors. The defendant admitted the priors and did so without admonishment, or waivers, of his rights to remain silent and to confront witnesses. The Court of Appeal concluded that without express advisements and waivers in the record, it is not possible here to find defendant's admissions were voluntary and intelligent. ( People v. Torres, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 1082, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 77.) In People v. Garcia (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1242, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 256, the same division of the Court of Appeal that had decided People v. Torres, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th 1073, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, reversed and remanded for retrial prior conviction allegations admitted by the defendant after advisement only of his right to a jury trial on those allegations. The Court of Appeal stated that nothing in the record suggests defendant's prior exposure to the criminal justice system afforded him notice of his right to confrontation and privilege against self-incrimination nor was he given any advice from which [he] could infer that his right to confrontation, which he had experienced in the trial-in-chief also applied to the trial of his priors. ( People v. Garcia, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 1248, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 256.)