How have the courts treated evidence of a prior conviction for driving under the influence in a motor vehicle case?

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior conviction for driving under the influence in violation of his due process rights; the trial court committed prejudicial error and also violated his due process rights by failing to advise him of his Boykin-Tahl rights (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122) before he stipulated the victim's treating physician would testify the victim slipped into a coma as a result of his head injury such that the jury's true finding on the great bodily injury enhancement allegation under Penal Code section 12022.7, subdivision (b) should be vacated; and, finally, that his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident should be reversed because he was not advised of his Boykin-Tahl rights before his trial counsel conceded guilt on that count during closing argument.

We affirm the judgment.