Guzman

Appellants (Marco Aurelio Guzman and Ruben Correa) were tried without a jury and found guilty of narcotics-related offenses. The Attorney General concedes the record “does not reflect an express waiver of the right to a jury trial by appellants].’’ The dispositive question is this: does the record, under the totality of circumstances, show a voluntary and intelligent jury waiver by appellants? (People v. Howard (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1132, 1175 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 268 , 824 P.2d 1315 ].) The answer is “no.” We reverse.

Discussion

Prior to People v. Howard the requirements of Boykin/Tahl (Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 23 L.Ed.2d 274 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 ]; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ]), at least in California, might accurately have been summarized as follows: “To protect a defendant’s fundamental rights, we must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. The record on its face must show, among other things, an express and explicit waiver of rights. Thus, we may not presume a valid waiver from a silent record or infer a waiver from either the entry of a guilty plea after the advisement of…