People v. Olgin

Opinion

WHITE, P. J.

Defendant and appellant Anthony Paul Olgin appeals from the judgment of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County entered after a jury found him guilty of a violation of Penal Code section 459 (burglary). Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that he was not advised, and therefore did not waive, his constitutional right to confrontation before admitting two prior felony convictions.

[186]

Before an accused can validly admit a prior felony conviction, he must be advised of, and waive, the “same constitutional rights waived as to a finding of guilt in case of a guilty plea,” i.e., his right to jury trial, confrontation and against self-incrimination.

(In re Yurko

(1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 863 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561].) In addition, the accused must be advised of the legal consequences of his admission.

(Id.,

at p. 864.)

The People apparently cite

People

v.

Martinez

(1980) 109 Cal.App. 3d 851 [167 Cal.Rptr. 477], for the proposition that it is not necessary that an accused be advised of his right to confrontation before admitting a prior felony conviction. In

Martinez,

the court stated: “It is contended that, because defendant was not expressly advised that he had a right to cross-examine witnesses as to the priors, his admission was invalid under

In re Yurko

(1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 .... We cannot read

Yurko

as imposing such a requirement. That opinion directed its attention to the need to advise a defendant of the important consequences of a finding of priors; it nowhere expressly refers to an advisement of any right of cross-examination. ”