Filed 2/27/18 P. v. Pettet CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TIMOTHY WILLIAM PETTETT,
Defendant and Appellant.
A151041

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. 5-161905-5)

Defendant Timothy William Pettett received a five-year sentence after being convicted by a jury of receiving a stolen vehicle and admitting that he had suffered prior convictions. On appeal, defendant claims the court erred in failing to obtain a personal waiver of his right to a jury trial before accepting his admissions that he had suffered the prior convictions supporting sentence enhancements. The People concede that the court erred. Accordingly, we shall reverse the sentence enhancements and remand for further proceedings on the prior conviction allegations.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Contra Costa County District Attorney charged defendant with receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of Penal Code section 496d, subdivision (a). The charge for receiving a stolen vehicle included a special allegation that defendant had suffered two prior convictions for vehicle theft within the meaning of section 666.5. It was further alleged that defendant had suffered prior convictions making him presumptively ineligible for probation (§ 1203, subd. (e)(4)) and had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). At defendant’s request, the court agreed to bifurcate the trial on the substantive offense of receiving a stolen vehicle from the trial on the prior convictions supporting both the section 666.5 special allegation and the sentence enhancements for having served prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
A jury found defendant guilty of receiving a stolen vehicle with a value exceeding $950. In a subsequent court proceeding, defendant admitted the prison priors and the special allegation that he had suffered prior auto theft convictions.
The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of five years in county jail, with two years to be served in custody and three years to be served on mandatory supervision. The sentence was composed of the midterm of three years pursuant to section 666.5, plus a consecutive two years for the two prior prison terms. Defendant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the court failed to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial on the prior conviction allegations before accepting his admissions. The People concede that the court erred and agree that the portion of defendant’s sentence that is attributable to his prior convictions must be reversed. As we explain, the concession is well taken.
“When a criminal defendant enters a guilty plea, the trial court is required to ensure that the plea is knowing and voluntary. [Citation.] As a prophylactic measure, the court must inform the defendant of three constitutional rights—the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront one’s accusers—and solicit a personal waiver of each.” (People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 170 (Cross).) The same requirements of advisement and waiver apply when a defendant admits the truth of a prior conviction allegation that subjects the defendant to a greater punishment. (In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 863.) In addition, before the court accepts an admission to a prior conviction allegation, the defendant “must be advised of the precise increase in the prison term that might be imposed . . . .” (Cross, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 170–171.)
Here, the trial court erred in failing to give the required advisements before accepting defendant’s admissions to both the section 666.5 special allegation and the prior prison term allegations supporting sentence enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). (Cross, supra, 61 Cal.4th at pp. 174–175 [Yurko advisements must be given before defendant admits special allegations that enhance sentence for the underlying offense]; People v. Lloyd (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 49, 52 [Yurko advisements apply to enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b)].)
The failure to advise a defendant of the right to a jury trial and obtain a personal waiver does not result in an automatic reversal of the prior conviction allegations. (See Cross, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 179.) The error does not require reversal “ ‘if the record affirmatively shows the admission was voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances.’ ” (Ibid.)
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.
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.)
DISPOSITION
The special allegation pursuant to section 666.5 and the sentence enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), are reversed. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for a limited retrial on the prior conviction allegations and for resentencing.



_________________________
McGuiness, Acting P.J. *


We concur:


_________________________
Pollak, J.


_________________________
Jenkins, J.