People v. Bernal

[1457]

Opinion

dential burglary and petty theft with a prior conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 666).

At approximately 11 a.m. on December 29, 1991, Bernal entered his mother’s home in Spring Valley, went into a bedroom and stole a car stereo. His sister and mother caught him committing the crime. Bernal left on a bicycle. After the jury returned guilty verdicts of burglary and petty theft, in a bifurcated hearing it found Bernal had served three prior prison terms and had been convicted of a prior serious felony. (Pen. Code, §§ 667.5, subd. (b); 667, subd. (a).) Bernal contends the prior serious felony conviction is void because he was not advised a possible consequence of his guilty plea was future use to enhance punishment and the court erred in entering judgment for both burglary and petty theft.

I

When entering a guilty plea, the defendant must be advised of the direct consequences of the conviction.

(Bunnell

v.

Superior Court

(1975) 13 Cal.3d 592, 604 [119 Cal.Rptr. 302, 531 P.2d 1086].) However, possible future use of a current conviction is not a direct consequence of the conviction.

(People

v.

Crosby

(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1356 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 159]; see also

People

v.

Lewis

(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1288, 1301 [237 Cal.Rptr. 64];

Hartman

v.

Municipal Court

(1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 891, 893 [111 Cal.Rptr. 126].)

A defendant need not be advised of the possible future use of a conviction in the event the defendant commits a later crime.