People v. Sandoval

Opinion

Frank Sandoval appeals the latest of many judgments of conviction; this time another for residential burglary. We affirm the judgment after rejecting his claim the trial court’s failure to exercise discretion to exclude evidence of his prior convictions for impeachment requires reversal, his contention that the court failed to take a separate jury trial waiver on the trial of his prior conviction enhancement allegations, and his charge that his jury trial waiver was tainted by pretrial evidentiary rulings and requires a reversal per se.

I

Sandoval first argues his general waiver of a jury trial, after the granting of his motion to bifurcate the trial on the current charged offenses from the fact-finding regarding the truth of allegations he had suffered prior felony convictions, did not relieve the trial court from its obligation to take a separate jury-trial waiver as to the portion relating to the prior convictions. We find no case or statutory authority supporting Sandoval’s contention. He does not contend any constitutional right has been violated. We find there is no such duty.

The justification for a bifurcated proceeding relating to prior convictions is to prevent jurors deciding a defendant’s guilt on unrelated charges from being informed of a prior criminal record by exposure to those prior convictions which have no relevance to guilt on present charges.

The issue was directly addressed in People v. Berutko (1969) 71 Cal.2d 84 , 94 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 217 , 453 P.2d 721 ], where the Supreme Court held a single waiver of jury trial will be deemed a defendant’s consent to try all issues in the case before the court sitting without a jury, including prior conviction charges.

Insofar as the trial court may have learned of Sandoval’s prior criminal history, suffice it to say a trial court always knows allegations in pleadings regarding prior convictions and is presumed able to impartially judge the guilt issues as well as the truth of those prior convictions. Here, the information identifies three prior felony convictions and two prior prison terms. The court is unlikely to have been more adversely affected by additional information in the probation report regarding Sandoval’s prior criminality than would be created by reading those allegations. Sandoval was caught red-handed, burglarizing the residence for which he was charged and convicted. There were no relevant issues of identity, as he was caught with loot in his hands and pockets. The proof of the prior convictions was established by clear documentation and the defendant’s personal jury waiver was taken with full awareness the trial court had read the presentence report. Sandoval’s lack of a credible defense as to either guilt or the validity of the prior conviction allegations convinces us beyond any reasonable doubt the unusual procedure here caused no prejudice.

Sandoval next claims the trial court erred in failing to exercise discretion under Evidence Code section 352 when ruling on his motion to prohibit the People from impeaching his credibility as a witness through evidence of his three previous theft-related burglaries and one robbery. He is correct. (See People v. Castro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 301 , 317 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 719 , 696 P.2d 111 ].) At least in part as a result of this pretrial ruling, Sandoval waived a jury to, as he puts it, “have any opportunity for a fair trial.” He in fact had a fair trial and does not now contend otherwise. He

In sum, we have a case where the trial court could have exercised its discretion in favor of admitting evidence of all four priors. Had it done so, Sandoval would have been faced with the same choices. His waiver was motivated by the court’s refusal to exclude the priors, not its rationale for that decision. Alternatively, the trial court could have refused to admit one or more of the priors.

Since the trial court could have discretionarily denied admission of one or more of the four prior convictions, we must address the issue posed by Collins: what is the standard of review for reversible error where one is induced to forgo the right to trial by jury because of Castro error? If the correct standard depends on evaluating the impact of the error against the predictability of Sandoval obtaining a more favorable result had it not occurred, the judgment must be affirmed. Assuming a jury would correctly follow relevant instructions on the law, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt it would have convicted Sandoval of burglary even absent reference to even one prior conviction. (Chapman v. State of California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 , 24 [ 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 710-711, 875 S.Ct. 824 , 24 A.L.R.3d 1065 ].)

The People urge us to evaluate trial court errors which induce a defendant to waive a jury trial by the same standards for harmless error historically used to determine whether instructional or evidentiary error deprived a defendant of a fair trial by a trier of fact voluntarily chosen. We believe, however, the constitutional due process right to a jury trial (see Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) 391 U.S. 145 [ 20 L.Ed.2d 491 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 ]) transcends the question whether a “fair” nonjury trial can be substituted. (Byram v. Superior Court (1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 648 , 654 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 604 ].) One’s choice to forgo a jury trial should not be forced by a concern that to do so provides the only fundamentally “fair” trial opportunity. Certainly, there is no incentive for the People or the court to exercise discretion in evaluating admission of prior conviction evidence, if a blanket admission policy would ease their procedural burden by coercing waivers of jury trials constituted so as to deny fundamental constitutional rights.

The essence of the question posed in Collins footnote 12, is whether Sandoval’s jury waiver requires us to evaluate the prejudicial effect of the court’s evidentiary mistake by a higher standard than harmless error, including the possibility of a per se reversal standard applicable for defective jury waivers. (See People v. Holmes (1960) 54 Cal.2d 442 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 871 , 353 P.2d 583 ].)

We first comment that the overwhelming evidence of Sandoval’s guilt shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. (Chapman v. State of California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 24 [17 L.Ed.2d at pp. 710-711].) We also reject a reversal per se rule on these facts.

People v. Holmes, supra, 54 Cal.2d 442 , stressed the practical difficulty facing Courts of Appeal attempting to determine from a silent or ambiguous record, whether a defendant had in fact knowingly waived the fundamental right to trial by jury. There, defendant was advised of his right to a jury trial but was not personally asked to and did not personally state his willingness to forgo that right, standing silent while his lawyer purported to “join in the waiver.” (Id. at p. 443.) Because the California Constitution declares the right to jury trial is to be secured to all and remain inviolate, waivable in criminal cases only by consent of both defendant and his attorney (former Cal. Const., art. I, § 7, now art. I, § 16), the Supreme Court refused to permit appellate courts to find a knowing waiver from conduct other than expressly stated consent. The need for certainty in this critical area of the constitutional right to a jury does not justify speculation on an issue which is so easily avoided by a minimum of trial court attention to detail. (Id. at p. 444.)

Here, Sandoval personally waived his right to a jury trial with a full understanding of its consequences. He was not deprived of his right to a jury trial; one was available at all times. Sandoval simply weighed his chances for an acquittal and opted to be tried without a jury. We assume Sandoval believed the slim chance of a court trier-of-fact accepting his incredible defense was a better bet than the odds would be were a jury to weigh the evidence after

To apply a reversal per se rule in a case where a fully informed defendant waives a jury trial merely to avoid adverse pretrial evidentiary rulings which later prove erroneous would permit litigants to abuse the judicial process. Defendants caught red-handed, facing insurmountable proof, would be encouraged to inundate the courts with in limine evidentiary motions, hoping to obtain one which is erroneous, regardless of its significance to establishment of guilt. To require reversal of a fundamentally fair court trial merely because a defendant couples his jury waiver with a statement that it was to avoid the impact of evidence later held inadmissible, without regard to its effect on the judgment, does not promote respect for the judicial system. (Rose v. Clark (1986) 478 U.S. 570 , _ [ 92 L.Ed.2d 460 , 470-471, 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 3106], citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall (1986) 475 U.S. 673 , 681-682 [ 89 L.Ed.2d 674 , 684-685, 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 1436-1437].) We hold the proper standard of review is that stated in People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 836.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

Kremer, P. J., and Wiener, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 16, 1987.