Opinion ID: 1351510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Failure to Advise Defendant of the Consequences of the Stipulation Concerning the Victim's Age and His Own Parolee Status

Text: During defendant's trial, counsel agreed to stipulate that the victim was 76 years old at the time of her murder, and that defendant was on parole for armed robbery at that time. Defendant now contends his convictions must be reversed because he was not advised of the consequences of the stipulations, nor was he asked to join in them. He relies on People v. Hall (1980) 28 Cal.3d 143 [167 Cal. Rptr 844, 616 P.2d 826], wherein this court indicated, in dictum, that trial courts in the future would be well-advised to assure the record adequately reflects the fact that a defendant is advised of any constitutional rights waived when stipulating to the status of an ex-felon. ( Id. at p. 157, fn. 9.) Even if we were to assume that this dictum in Hall should properly be extended to the stipulations at issue here, reversal would not be warranted. (20) In People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487 [233 Cal. Rptr. 69, 729 P.2d 260], we held that when a defendant's submission or stipulation is not tantamount to a guilty plea, [a] trial court's failure to comply with [a] judicial rule of criminal procedure [like that articulated in Hall ] requires reversal only if it is reasonably probable a result more favorable to the defendant would have been reached if he had been properly advised. [Citations.] (43 Cal.3d at p. 495, fn. omitted.) In this case, the factual stipulations appear routine; there is nothing in the record to suggest the People would have had any difficulty proving the victim's age, or defendant's parolee status. Both facts are of a type which are easily verifiable by resort to standard sources. Moreover, we fail to perceive how there could have been any prejudice, since none of the related enhancements actually added an additional term to defendant's overall sentence, but merely made him probation ineligible or prohibited a suspended sentence. Inasmuch as the special circumstance allegations were sustained, the minimum sentence defendant could have received was life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; the possibility of probation or a suspended sentence was nonexistent.