Can a defendant waiver of his right to trial on a prior robbery conviction?

Disregarding the events at the pretrial hearing, defendant argues he could not have given an informed waiver of his right to trial on the prior robbery conviction because neither the court nor counsel identified the date or court of the conviction, nor did they inform defendant that he was admitting a strike and serious felony conviction. In fact, at the pretrial hearing the court did review with defendant the year, if not the specific date, of the robbery conviction and explained to defendant the impact on sentencing of the conviction, using both terms "strike" and "serious felony." Because we evaluate the informed nature of a defendant's waiver on the basis of the entire record, taking into consideration defendant's prior experience with the criminal justice system (People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 365), the discussions from the earlier hearing can be considered to demonstrate defendant was aware of the nature and implications of his admission. Although, as defendant notes, the court did not specify the exact date or court of the conviction, no case holds this level of detail to be necessary. There is no reason to believe defendant would have admitted having been convicted of robbery in 2007 if, in fact, he was not convicted of robbery in that year.

With respect to the prior prison terms allegations, defendant contends his admission was invalid because the court did not specifically describe the convictions and did not ask him to admit the remaining elements of a section 667.5 sentencing enhancementserving and completing separate prison terms less than five years earlier. (See People v. Tenner (1993) 6 Cal.4th 559, 563.)