People v. Cross, 61 Cal. 4th 164

Background

Defendant Joshua Cross was charged with felony corporal injury to a cohabitant under Penal Code § 273.5(a); the information alleged a prior § 273.5 conviction within seven years.
At trial Cross (through counsel) stipulated to the prior conviction; the trial court accepted the stipulation without advising Cross of constitutional trial rights or eliciting a personal waiver.
The jury convicted Cross of the current § 273.5(a) offense and found the prior-conviction allegation true.
Because of the prior, the court sentenced Cross to the five-year maximum under former § 273.5(e) (now § 273.5(f)).
On appeal Cross argued his stipulation was invalid under In re Yurko because it was made without the Boykin/Tahl advisements; the Court of Appeal rejected him, relying on People v. Witcher.
The California Supreme Court granted review, held Yurko applies, reversed the true finding and sentence, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boykin/Tahl/Yurko advisements are required before accepting a defendant's admission/stipulation to a prior conviction that increases punishment	The People argued no forfeiture and that stipulating to a prior that is an element of an aggravated scheme is like stipulating an element; no special advisement requirement beyond statutory protections	Cross argued his stipulation exposed him to greater punishment and, per Yurko, required express Boykin/Tahl advisements and personal waiver; absence invalidated the stipulation	Court held Yurko applies: when an admission to a prior conviction alone exposes a defendant to increased punishment, the court must ensure the waiver is knowing and voluntary (Boykin/Tahl protections); Cross’s stipulation invalidated and sentence vacated
Whether Cross forfeited the claim by failing to object at trial	AG relied on forfeiture principles (People v. Vera) to bar review	Cross relied on Yurko/Palmer analogies that prophylactic plea protections cannot be forfeited where voluntariness is at stake	Court exercised discretion to reach the claim: forfeiture inapplicable because the issue concerns fundamental voluntariness/prophylactic protections akin to guilty-plea safeguards
Whether the distinction between an "enhancement" and an "alternative sentencing scheme" matters for advisement requirements	AG and Court of Appeal argued § 273.5(f) is an alternative sentencing scheme, so Yurko does not apply	Cross argued practical effect matters: the stipulation exposed him to additional punishment like an enhancement, so Yurko governs	Court rejected the distinction as dispositive: practical effect (automatic increased exposure) triggers Yurko protections regardless of label
Whether the record showed a knowing and voluntary waiver under the totality-of-the-circumstances test	AG argued Adams/Witcher-type authorities or that the complaint’s charging and plea context gave notice of consequences	Cross argued the colloquy contained no personal advisement, waiver, or indication he knew his rights or consequences	Court found the record lacked affirmative proof the stipulation was knowing and voluntary under Howard/Mosby totality test; set aside the stipulation and sentence

Key Cases Cited

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (superseded in part on other grounds) (guilty plea requires advisement and personal waiver of three constitutional rights)
In re Yurko, 10 Cal.3d 857 (1974) (prior-conviction admission that increases punishment requires Boykin/Tahl advisements)
In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122 (1969) (plea voluntariness and waiver requirements)
People v. Adams, 6 Cal.4th 570 (1993) (distinguishing evidentiary stipulations from admissions that have definite penal consequences)
People v. Howard, 1 Cal.4th 1132 (1992) (Yurko reaffirmed; voluntariness reviewed under totality of circumstances)
People v. Newman, 21 Cal.4th 413 (1999) (stipulation to felon status not triggering Boykin/Tahl when no direct penal consequence flows)
People v. Witcher, 41 Cal.App.4th 223 (1995) (court of appeal case disapproved to extent inconsistent) (held Yurko inapplicable to certain stipulations)
People v. Shippey, 168 Cal.App.3d 879 (1985) (applied Yurko to prior misdemeanor that raised punishment)
People v. Mosby, 33 Cal.4th 353 (2004) (totality-of-the-record test for voluntariness of prior-admission waivers)
People v. Palmer, 58 Cal.4th 110 (2013) (prophylactic plea protections may be reviewable despite lack of contemporaneous objection)