People v. Lupien CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the proceedings below.

Counsel presents no argument for reversal but asks this court to review the record for

error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel suggests, as an

issue for our review, whether the trial court erred in denying Lupien's motion to strike his

prior conviction.

We granted Lupien permission to file a brief on his own behalf, and he did so.

Lupien also filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which we have ordered

considered with his appeal. In his brief, Lupien argues the trial court erred in denying his

motion to strike his prior conviction. In particular, he argues the trial court should not

have relied solely on the minute order, which shows that the trial court in the prior case

advised Lupien of his right against self-incrimination, his right to confront witnesses, and

his right to a jury trial.

Although, as the trial court itself indicated, a reporter's transcript of Boykin-Tahl

admonishments and their waiver is a preferable means of establishing compliance, it is

not required. In People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 255-256, a case…