Balderrama

Rogelio Balderrama was convicted by a jury of burglarizing a residence (Pen. Code, 2 § 459). He admitted he had a prior serious felony conviction (§§ 667, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(l)(18)). On appeal, Balderrama contends the court failed to adequately advise him of his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and his right of confrontation *284 before accepting his admission of the prior serious felony conviction. He also contends the court relied on improper factors to justify imposing a consecutive sentence. We agree the trial court failed to give Balderrama a sufficient advisement of his constitutional rights before accepting his admission and therefore reverse and remand on that issue. Otherwise, we affirm.

Discussion

I

Sufficiency of Advisements

When a trial court accepts a guilty plea, “the record must contain on its face direct evidence that the accused was aware, or made aware, of his right to confrontation, to a jury trial, and against self-incrimination, . . .” (In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122, 132 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 577 , 460 P.2d 449 ], cert, den. 398 U.S. 911 [ 26 L.Ed.2d 72 , 90 S.Ct. 1708 ], italics in original.) These admonitions are…