People v. Mosby
Decision Date | 31 January 2002 |
Docket Number | No. C033593.,C033593. |
Citation | 95 Cal.App.4th 967,116 Cal.Rptr.2d 208 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clyde MOSBY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Steven A. Torres, Torres & Torres, Boston, MA, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Susan J. Orton, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After a jury found defendant Clyde Mosby guilty of selling cocaine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), defendant admitted that he had suffered a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c).
On appeal, he contends that the trial court (1) failed to properly admonish him and obtain the requisite waivers, as required by In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449 (Tahl), before he admitted his prior conviction, and (2) erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC No. 17.41.1. Since defendant was not prejudiced in either case, we shall affirm.
In the published portion of this opinion, we address whether a defendant's admission of a prior conviction is voluntary and intelligent—the test for harmless error here—when the record reflects that the defendant has expressly waived his right to both a jury and court trial in connection with his admission of his prior conviction, but has neither been expressly advised of, nor waived, his rights to remain silent or to confront witnesses in accordance with Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449. We conclude that a defendant has made a voluntary and intelligent decision to admit his prior conviction, when he has expressly waived his right to both a jury and court trial over the issue of his prior conviction pursuant to the advice of counsel, and has just completed a jury trial, where he has confronted witnesses and exercised his right to remain silent. Under those circumstances, a defendant must necessarily be aware that the waiver of his right to trial means that he is waiving his right to confront witnesses at that waived trial, and that by admitting his prior conviction, he is waiving his right to remain silent over the existence of that conviction. It would exalt a formula (the specific admonitions to be enumerated for a valid plea under Tahl) over the very standard that the formula is supposed to serve (that the plea is intelligent and voluntary)—and would affront common sense—to suggest that a defendant, who has just completed a contested jury trial, is nonetheless unaware that he is surrendering the protections of such a trial when he thereafter expressly waives his right to both a jury and court trial over the issue of his prior conviction pursuant to the advice of counsel and instead admits the conviction. While we do not condone the trial court's failure to give the required admonitions under Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449, neither do we consider, on this record, the defendant's admission of his prior conviction to be anything but intelligent and voluntary.
Given the contentions on appeal, the underlying facts of the offense may be briefly stated.
An undercover police officer approached Alice Fulbright, and asked where he could get a "20," i.e., $20 worth of rock cocaine. Fulbright directed the officer to another location, where defendant motioned the officer over. When the officer pulled up, defendant approached the vehicle, and the officer told defendant that he wanted $20 worth of rock cocaine. Defendant responded "all right," and told a second man that the officer wanted a 20. The officer gave the second man $20 in exchange for a piece of rock cocaine.
Defendant and Fulbright were each charged with one count of selling cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11352, subdivision (a). Defendant was also alleged to have suffered a prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code section 11370, subdivisions (a) and (c).
The jury found both defendant and Fulbright guilty of selling cocaine. Defendant waived his right to a jury over the adjudication of his prior felony conviction allegation and subsequently admitted it.
We address first defendant's claim that the trial court failed to properly admonish him and obtain the requisite waivers before he admitted his prior conviction.
After the jury had reached its verdicts, but before they were announced, the court engaged in the following colloquy with defendant and his counsel:
After the jury verdicts were read and the jury polled and discharged, the court turned again to the issue of defendant's alleged prior conviction:
Defendant contends that his sentence must be reversed, and the matter remanded for resentencing because before the trial court accepted his admission of his prior conviction, it "failed to advise [defendant] of any of his constitutional rights, other than his right to a jury trial, or to secure [defendant's] waiver of those rights." Accordingly, defendant argues that "the admissions were not `knowing and intelligent,' and this court must reverse [defendant's] three year eight month commitment. . . ."
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 242-244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711-1713, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279-280 (Boykin), the United States Supreme Court held that it was error for a trial court to accept a defendant's guilty plea to a series of robberies "without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary." (395 U.S. at p. 242, 89 S.Ct. at p. 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d at p. 279.) It explained that the waiver of three constitutional rights was involved in a plea-the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one's accusers and that it could not "presume a waiver of these three important federal rights from a silent record." (395 U.S. 238, 243-244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712-1713, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, 279-280.)
In Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal. Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449, limited on other grounds in Mills v. Municipal Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 288, 302-311, 110 Cal. Rptr. 329, 515 P.2d 273, the California Supreme Court concluded (erroneously, as it turned out1) that Boykin required ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tucker, B161314 (Cal. App. 11/21/2003)
...953, 957, 960.) We note that a variation of this issue is currently pending before the California Supreme Court in People v. Mosby (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 967 (review granted May 1, 2002, IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. I concur: GRIGNON, J. MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting. I co......
-
People v. Medrano
... ... --------------- ... 1. We note "the record in Howard " consisted solely of "the trial court's colloquy with defendant and his counsel[.]" ( People v. Allen, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 438, parentheses omitted.) ... 2. We note our Supreme Court has granted review in People v. Mosby (formerly (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 967, review granted May 1, 2002, No. S104862) wherein the appellate court emphasized the fact the defendant had just undergone a jury trial on the guilt issues in determining the validity of his admission of the prior ... --------------- ... ...
- People v. Turner
-
People v. Johnson, B163472 (Cal. App. 11/26/2003)
...the defendant was admonished only of his right to a jury trial—is presently pending before the California Supreme Court. (People v. Mosby (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 967, review granted May 1, 2002, The Attorney General argues that Johnson's admission was voluntary and intelligent because he had ......