Opinion ID: 2521459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incomplete Boykin-Tahl advisements

Text: 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.)