Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of jury trial as to prior felony conviction allegation

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting him to stipulate to having suffered a prior felony conviction without the court's obtaining a prior waiver of defendant's constitutional rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449. We recently addressed the identical argument in People v. Newman (1999) 21 Cal.4th 413, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 981 P.2d 98. In that decision, we relied upon the rationale that when a defendant has asserted and has been afforded his or her right to trial, has waived none of his or her constitutional rights, but has elected to stipulate to one but not all of the evidentiary facts necessary to a conviction of an offense or to a finding that an enhancement allegation is true, the concerns of voluntariness prompting the Boykin holding are not present. We concluded that the trial court was not required to provide the Boykin-Tahl advisements before permitting defendant, through his counsel, to stipulate during his trial for possession of a firearm by a felon that he previously had been convicted of a felony. [Citations.] ( People v. Newman, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 422, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 981 P.2d 98, fn. omitted.) Accordingly, in the present case, the trial court did not err in not giving the Boykin-Tahl advisements prior to defendant's stipulation that he previously had been convicted of a felony.