People v. Burns, 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 442

In Sept. 2017 Burns struck his girlfriend in a hotel parking lot, drove off from a police officer, led a high-speed chase, jumped from the vehicle, and was detained.
Charged with kidnapping (reduced at trial to false imprisonment), evading a police vehicle, inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant, and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon; alleged prior serious-felony enhancement and two strikes.
Defense counsel conceded Burns was guilty of evading (count 2) and inflicting corporal injury (count 3) during opening and closing arguments; the record is silent whether Burns expressly consented.
Jury convicted on the charged counts; Burns admitted prior convictions; court struck one strike and sentenced him to 19 years 8 months.
On appeal Burns argued (1) counsel’s concessions amounted to a guilty plea requiring his personal waiver, and (2) the case should be remanded for consideration of pretrial mental-health diversion under newly enacted Penal Code §1001.36.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Burns)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether counsel’s concessions during opening/closing were tantamount to a guilty plea requiring an on-the-record Boykin–Tahl waiver	Concession of guilt on counts 2 and 3 without Burns’s express consent violated his rights and is equivalent to a guilty plea (McCoy/Farwell)	Longstanding California precedent permits counsel to concede guilt as trial strategy; not equivalent to plea absent an express disagreement or stipulation to elements	Rejected. Counsel’s concessions were not tantamount to a guilty plea; no Boykin–Tahl waiver required (followed Cain/Nixon/Lopez/Marsh)
Whether Penal Code §1001.36 (mental-health pretrial diversion) applies to nonfinal judgments and whether remand for diversion eligibility is required	Section 1001.36 should apply retroactively to nonfinal cases under Estrada/Lara; remand is appropriate because the record shows potential eligibility	Argues statute should not apply retroactively to already-sentenced defendants and remand would be futile	Granted conditional reversal and remand for a diversion eligibility hearing: court finds Estrada inference applies (following Frahs/Weaver/Lara) and that the record could support several eligibility criteria, so remand is not futile

People v. Cain, 10 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1994) (trial counsel may concede guilt as strategy without that concession being tantamount to a guilty plea)
Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (attorney’s concession not necessarily a guilty plea where defendant did not expressly object)
McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (U.S. 2018) (counsel may not concede guilt over a client’s express and steadfast objection; structural error)
People v. Farwell, 5 Cal.5th 295 (Cal. 2018) (a stipulation admitting all elements of a charged offense can be tantamount to a guilty plea)
People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (applied Estrada retroactivity to juvenile transfer rules; guidance on retroactive application of ameliorative criminal statutes)
People v. Frahs, 27 Cal.App.5th 784 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (applied §1001.36 retroactively to nonfinal cases and ordered conditional reversal for diversion consideration)