Home

Thesaurus

						iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			Law Students-USL
						Law Dictionary			BankruptcyCode.US
						Criminal Law Boykin Tahl Rights			United States Law.US

US Codes

State Codes

Evidence

Law Students-USL

Federal Rules of Evidence

Medical Dictionaries

A Legal and Business Portal
A Legal and Business Portal

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Criminal Law-Boykin Tahl Rights-Required Admonishment
(Peolpe_v_Christian)

A - Aa - Ab -Ac - Ad - Ae - - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - K - L - M- N -O- P - P to Z

Criminal Law Guilty Plea Required Waivers-Boykin Tahl Rights
(Peolpe v Christian)

The recent case of Mosby traced the relevant jurisprudence, beginning with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 (Boykin). Mosby stated, “the United States Supreme Court in Boykin explained that a defendant seeking to plead guilty is denied due process under the federal Constitution unless the plea is voluntary and knowing.” (Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 359.) Boykin required the record to demonstrate that the defendant was apprised of his or her privilege against self-incrimination, right to jury trial, and right to confront witnesses. (Boykin, supra, at p. 243; Mosby, supra, at p. 359.)

“In the wake of Boykin, [the California Supreme Court held,] in In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, that ‘each of the three rights mentioned . . . must be specifically and expressly enumerated for the benefit of and waived by the accused prior to acceptance of his guilty plea.’ [Citation.] [¶] Some five years later, in In re Yurko [(1974)] 10 Cal.3d 857, [the California Supreme Court] 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.’ [Citation.]” (Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 359; see also People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 268; In re Tahl, supra, at pp. 124-133.)

In 1992, in People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, the California Supreme Court reiterated that trial courts must expressly advise defendants on the record of their privilege against self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one’s accusers. (Id. at pp. 1175, 1179.) However, Howard concluded that a trial court’s failure to provide the requisite admonitions did not require per se reversal. (Id. at pp. 1174-1179.) If the record did not disclose the proper advisements and waivers, the federal test was to be applied. Thus, the appropriate inquiry to determine if the plea was valid was whether the record affirmatively showed it was “voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1175; Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 360-361.)

“After [People v. Howard, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1132], an appellate court must go beyond the courtroom colloquy to assess a claim [that proper advisements have not been given]. (See People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424, 438.) Now, if the transcript does not reveal complete advisements and waivers, the reviewing court must examine the record of ‘the entire proceeding’ to assess whether the defendant’s [plea of guilty or] admission of the prior conviction was intelligent and voluntary in light of the totality of circumstances. [Citation.]” (Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 361.)

In Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th 353, the defendant was charged with one count of selling cocaine. It was also alleged that he had a prior felony conviction. (Id. at p. 356.) After learning that the jury had arrived at a guilty verdict on the substantive offense, the defendant admitted the prior felony conviction. (Id. at p. 357.) Prior to accepting the admission of the prior felony conviction allegation, the defendant was advised of, and waived his right to trial by jury. However, the defendant was not advised of his rights of confrontation and against self-incrimination. (Id. at pp. 357-358.)

Mosby phrased the issue to be decided as: “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?” (Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 356.) Mosby answered this question by stating “ ‘[y]es,’ if the totality of circumstances surrounding the admission supports such a conclusion.” (Ibid.)

Mosby examined other cases in which defendants had not been properly advised prior to admitting the truth of prior conviction allegations. In these cases, the defendants had obtained reversals of judgments with regard to prior conviction admissions. In all of the cases discussed by Mosby, the defendants admitted prior convictions after a jury trial on the substantive charges. Mosby separated these cases into two categories: (1) truly silent record cases, those in which the record showed “no express advisement and waiver of the Boykin-Tahl rights before a defendant’s admission of a prior conviction” (Mosby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 361); and (2) incomplete Boykin-Tahl advisement cases, those in which the defendants had been advised of their right to a jury trial, but not of the other two constitutional rights. (Id. at pp. 362-364.)

People v. Christian-B168038-1/6/05-CA2/3

Date Posted	Docket #/ File Format	Description

Jan 06 2005

B168038
[PDF] [DOC]

P. v. Christian 1/6/05 CA2/3

A - Aa - Ab - Ac - B- C- D - E- F - G - H -I- J - L - M- N - K to Z
Bruton v. United States, supra, 391 U.S. 123 [20 L.Ed.2d 476]
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238
In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122
People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353
California: Authoritative-Law Dictionary: Table of Contents
Glossaries Directory Table of Contents
Thesaurus Directory
Dictionaries Directory Table of Contents