People v. Mosby
Decision Date | 08 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. S104862.,S104862. |
Citation | 92 P.3d 841,15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262,33 Cal.4th 353 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clyde MOSBY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Elizabeth Campbell, Sacramento, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Steven A. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner and Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Stan A. Cross and Susan J. Orton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Thirty years ago this court held that before accepting a criminal defendant's admission of a prior conviction, the trial court must advise the defendant and obtain waivers of (1) the right to a trial to determine the fact of the prior conviction, (2) the right to remain silent, and (3) the right to confront adverse witnesses. (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 863, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561.) Proper advisement and waivers of these rights in the record establish a defendant's voluntary and intelligent admission of the prior conviction. (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1178-1179, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315 (Howard); North Carolina v. Alford (1970) 400 U.S. 25, 31, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162.)
When, immediately after a jury verdict of guilty, a defendant admits a prior conviction after being advised of and waiving only the right to trial, can that admission be voluntary and intelligent even though the defendant was not told of, and thus did not expressly waive, the concomitant rights to remain silent and to confront adverse witnesses? The answer is "yes," if the totality of circumstances surrounding the admission supports such a conclusion.
On April 13, 1999, defendant Clyde Mosby was arrested for selling a $20 piece of rock cocaine to an undercover police officer. He was charged with one count of selling cocaine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11352, subd. (a)), and it was alleged he had a prior felony conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf.Code, § 11370, subds. (a) & (c)).1
At trial, the prosecution offered three witnesses: Detective Chaplin, who bought the cocaine, described its purchase; Detective Reyes, who was present at the arrest, identified the rock of cocaine as the one he had seized; and chemist Edwin Smith testified that the rock contained cocaine base. Defendant's attorney cross-examined each detective. Defendant did not testify, although his codefendant did.
After the trial court learned that the jury had arrived at its verdict, the trial court asked defendant whether he wanted a jury trial on the bifurcated prior conviction allegation.
The jury then returned and delivered its verdict finding defendant guilty of selling cocaine. After discharging the jury, the court returned to the prior conviction allegation.
The court then read the allegation that on May 5, 1993 defendant was convicted of drug possession in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350; defendant admitted that he had been so convicted. Defendant was sentenced to a prison term of three years and eight months.
Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court's incomplete rights advisements rendered his admission of the prior conviction invalid. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It said: "It would frankly be absurd for this court to find that the defendant's admission of his prior conviction — a prior plea of guilty — was not voluntary and intelligent when he knew he did not have to admit but could have had a jury or court trial, had just participated in a jury trial where he had confronted witnesses and remained silent, and had experience in pleading guilty in the past, namely, the very conviction that he was now admitting."
Defendant petitioned for review in this court, arguing that the Court of Appeal's decision created a conflict with other Court of Appeal opinions. We granted review.
In Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 and footnote 5, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, the United States Supreme Court explained that a defendant seeking to plead guilty is denied due process under the federal Constitution unless the plea is voluntary and knowing. (Id. at p. 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709.) In Boykin, the defendant pled guilty to five counts at a proceeding in which "the judge asked no questions of petitioner concerning his plea, and petitioner did not address the court." (Id. at p. 239, 89 S.Ct. 1709.) Given that truly "silent record," the high court refused to presume a knowing and voluntary waiver of these constitutional rights. (Ibid.) In the wake of Boykin, we held in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449, that "each of the three rights mentioned — self-incrimination, confrontation, and jury trial — must be specifically and expressly enumerated for the benefit of and waived by the accused prior to acceptance of his guilty plea." (Id. at p. 132, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449, italics added.)
Some five years later, in In re Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d 857, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561, we adopted as a judicial rule of criminal procedure the requirement that the three Boykin-Tahl admonitions must also be given "before a court accepts an accused's admission that he has suffered prior felony convictions." (Id. at p. 863, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561, italics added.)
Of note here is a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court that the federal Constitution's right to a jury trial does not extend to the factual determination of whether a defendant has suffered a prior conviction. (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435.) Nor does our state Constitution afford such a right. (People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 23, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 572, 18 P.3d 2; see also People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 326, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, 27 P.3d 739.) That right is purely statutory in origin. (Pen.Code, §§ 1025 [ ], 1158; People v. Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 23, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 572, 18 P.3d 2.) When trial is required by statute, we shall assume for the purpose of this discussion that a defendant's due process trial rights, at least under our state Constitution, encompass the rights to remain silent and to confront witnesses. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) Here, defendant was advised only of his right to trial, which he waived before admitting the prior conviction. Thus, we must decide whether, under the totality of the circumstances, defendant's admission was voluntary and intelligent despite the trial court's failure to advise defendant of the rights to remain silent and to confront witnesses.
For nearly two decades after our decision in In re Yurko, supra, 10 Cal.3d 857, 112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561, lack of express advisement, and waiver, of all three Boykin-Tahl rights was viewed as error requiring automatic reversal. (See People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 493-495, 233 Cal.Rptr. 69, 729 P.2d 260; In re Ibarra (1983) 34 Cal.3d 277, 283, fn. 1, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d 980; In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Thomas
...to the question whether heknowingly waived constitutional rights . . . ." (Parke v. Raley (1992) 506 U.S. 20, 37 ; see People v. Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 365 [defendant voluntarily and intelligently admitted his prior conviction despite being advised of and having waived only his righ......
-
People v. Sivongxxay
...instead have conducted a more comprehensive assessment of the totality of the circumstances. (See, e.g., People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841 ; Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 1175-1178, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268, 824 P.2d 1315.) As we have discussed, here the......
-
People v. Lloyd
...waivers of each right, a line of cases involving incomplete Boykin –Tahl advisements has developed. (See People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841 ; People v. Christian (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 688, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 861 ; People v. Carroll (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 892,......
-
In re Corpus
...also " ‘before a court accepts an accused's admission that he has suffered prior felony convictions ’ " (People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 360, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262, 92 P.3d 841). Similarly, in People v. Vickers (1972) 8 Cal.3d 451, 461, 105 Cal.Rptr. 305, 503 P.2d 1313, we declined to "......
-
Prior convictions of separate offenses
...defendant, through his counsel, to stipulate during trial that he previously had been convicted of a felony). In People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, the California Supreme Court held that under the totality of circumstances, a defendant’s admission to a prior conviction was voluntarily a......
-
Table of cases
...v. Morrison (1938) 26 Cal.App.2d 616, §9:104.1 People v. Morrow (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 939, §9:86.1, Appendix E People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, §4:14.4 People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, §§7:65, 8:21 - PE - California Drunk Driving Law F-40 People v. Mulcrevy (2015) 233 Cal.......
-
Arraignment and pretrial matters
...admission is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. Howard , at p. 1175; see also People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361–365. The plea must be voluntary and knowing, and if it was induced by promises, the essence of those promises must in some way be made kno......