admission constitutes error in California

2016Rather, it is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.” (Ibid.; see People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 495 [“ ‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary . . . , an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.’ ”].) Wrice continues: “Consequently, when the only error is a failure to advise of the penal consequences, the error is waived i

1991First, “Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which re *1023 quires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.” (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315, 321 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 781 , 562 P.2d 684 ].) “A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea

2019For minors, such as J.M., who are declared wards and alleged to have committed a section 707, subdivision (b), offense between July 1, 2012 and July 1, 2018, the maximum period they can be held at the DJJ (assuming no order for further detention) is until age 23. (§ 1769, subd. (c).)10 Nonetheless, the error was harmless. “[A]n uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.” (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315, 321 .)

1991First, “Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which re *1023 quires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.” (In re Ronald E. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 315, 321 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 781 , 562 P.2d 684 ].) “A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

1990Since there was no agreement regarding any possible penalties in appellant’s case, there is no issue raised of breach of an implied term in a plea bargain. 3 “While an uninformed waiver of defendant’s constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses and against self-incrimination *. . . renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.

1990Since there was no agreement regarding any possible penalties in appellant’s case, there is no issue raised of breach of an implied term in a plea bargain. 3 “While an uninformed waiver of defendant’s constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses and against self-incrimination *. . . renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.

2016Rather, it is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.” (Ibid.; see People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 495 [“ ‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary . . . , an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.’ ”].) Wrice continues: “Consequently, when the only error is a failure to advise of the penal consequences, the error is waived i

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

2016Rather, it is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.” (Ibid.; see People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 495 [“ ‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary . . . , an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.’ ”].) Wrice continues: “Consequently, when the only error is a failure to advise of the penal consequences, the error is waived i

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

2016Rather, it is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.” (Ibid.; see People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 495 [“ ‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary . . . , an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.’ ”].) Wrice continues: “Consequently, when the only error is a failure to advise of the penal consequences, the error is waived i

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: “Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.” (Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequences

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: “Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused.” (Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequences

2024Rather the rule compelling such advisement is ‘a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure.’ ” (Walker, at p. 1022.) Thus, “ ‘an uninformed waiver based on the failure of the court to advise an accused on the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused’ ” and “the error is waived absent a timely objection.” (Id. at pp. 1022–1023; see Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 181–182 [error waived absent a timely objection].) 4.

2019(Hill v. Lockhart (1985) 474 U.S. 52, 59 (Hill).) J.M. fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that she would have been less inclined to admit count 1 had she been informed the maximum commitment term would be shorter than she was told. 10 While the maximum age has been raised to 25 for certain offenses, those changes only apply to commitments made on or after July 1, 2018. (§§ 607, subd. (g), 1769, subd. (d)(3).) 16 D.

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

2014(People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 359-360 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 262 , 92 P.3d 841 ] . . . ; Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, 243 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 513 , 519 P.2d 561 ].) The trial court also must advise the accused of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction.” (People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1420 .) “‘Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and r

1990(In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 321 ; People v. Wagoner (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 605, 611 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 639 ]; In re Chambliss (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 199, 202-203 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea if he had been told about the fine.

1990(In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 321 ; People v. Wagoner (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 605, 611 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 639 ]; In re Chambliss (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 199, 202-203 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea if he had been told about the fine.

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: "Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the *947 failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused." ( Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequ

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: "Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the *947 failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused." ( Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequ

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: "Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the *947 failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused." ( Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequ

1990Summarizing Yurko , the court said: "Unlike an uninformed waiver of the specified constitutional rights which renders a plea or admission involuntary and requires that it be set aside, an uninformed waiver based on the *947 failure of the court to advise an accused of the consequences of an admission constitutes error which requires that the admission be set aside only if the error is prejudicial to the accused." ( Ronald E., supra, at p. 321 .) The court, applying the prejudice standard of People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 [ 299 P.2d 243 ], went on to find the failure to advise of consequ

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990(In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 321 ; People v. Wagoner (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 605, 611 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 639 ]; In re Chambliss (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 199, 202-203 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea if he had been told about the fine.

1990(In re Ronald E., supra, 19 Cal.3d at p. 321 ; People v. Wagoner (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 605, 611 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 639 ]; In re Chambliss (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 199, 202-203 [ 173 Cal.Rptr. 712 ].) A showing of prejudice requires the appellant to demonstrate that it is reasonably probable he would not have entered his plea if he had been told about the fine.

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1990(See People v. Johnson (1989) 212 Cal. App.3d 1179, 1182 [ 261 Cal. Rptr. 159 ] ["Failure to advise and obtain a waiver of any of these rights is error reversible per se"]; People v. English (1981) 116 Cal. App.3d 361, 369 [ 172 Cal. Rptr. 122 ] [quoting language from Ronald E. on distinction between the advisement of rights and the advisement of consequences, and finding a defective advisement of consequences harmless]; People v. Caban (1983) 148 Cal. App.3d 706, 711-712 [ 196 Cal. Rptr. 177 ] [quoting Ronald E. but finding failure to advise on consequences prejudicial].) In two cases, Court

1977(See In re Mary B. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 816, 820 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 178 ].) The absence of a knowledgeable waiver of constitutional rights before entering a guilty plea or, in the case of juvenile court proceedings, the admission of jurisdictional facts constitutes grounds for relief on habeas corpus.

1977(See In re Mary B. (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 816, 820 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 178 ].) The absence of a knowledgeable waiver of constitutional rights before entering a guilty plea or, in the case of juvenile court proceedings, the admission of jurisdictional facts constitutes grounds for relief on habeas corpus.