People v. Newman

California Supreme Court

Decided August 16, 1999

California Supreme Court · decided 1999-08-16

Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · 1 Cal. 3d 122 - In Re Tahl · 6 Cal. 4th 570 - People v. Adams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1999-08-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently December 2017

14 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.

¶1I concur in the judgment and the majority’s reasoning with the exception of footnote 4. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 442, fn. 4.) It necessarily follows both from this court’s reasoning in People v. Adams (1993) 6 Cal.4th 570 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 831, 862 P.2d 831], as well as the majority’s reasoning today, that a defendant who stipulates to every element of a charged offense or enhancement must be advised of and waive his or her rights in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449]. Because the majority, in footnote 4, plants a seed of doubt as to this issue when no doubt previously existed, I cannot join it.

¶2With that exception, I concur in the majority opinion.

¶3Mosk, J., concurred.