Does a defendant have a waiver of his right to a jury trial when he admitted to a charge of sexual assault?

As the People acknowledge, the totality of the circumstances in this case does not support a conclusion that defendant's admissions were knowing and intelligent. (See People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361-362 [where advisements are not just incomplete but non-existent, court may not infer that defendant voluntarily and intelligently waived right to jury trial].) Because defendant was convicted by a jury of the underlying charge, he would not have been previously advised by the court about the right to a jury trial. Furthermore, the court's only comment about defendant's right to a trial on the prior convictions was that the district attorney would be required to "prove them up" if he chose not to admit them. The trial court did not advise defendant of his right to a jury trial, the right to remain silent, or the right to confront his accusers. The court also neglected to explain the penal effect of admitting the prior convictions. Therefore, defendant is entitled to a reversal of the portion of his sentence that is based on the prior conviction allegations.

Page 4

On remand, the trial court may proceed to try the prior conviction allegations or accept an admission to the allegations after securing an adequate waiver of defendant's right to a jury trial. (See People v. Fisk (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 364, 372-373.)