Is a defendant's admission of an alleged enhancement valid even if it does not include specific admissions of every factual element required to establish the enhancement?

"[A] defendant's admission of an alleged enhancement is valid even if it does not include specific admissions of every factual element required to establish the enhancement." (People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 50.) The information alleged Barraza's prior attempted robbery conviction qualified as a serious felony pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1). It was the same prior conviction Barraza admitted and the court expressly found constituted a strike conviction pursuant to sections 667, subdivision (d) and 1170.12. Barraza does not contend his admission was not knowing or voluntary, but only that the court's failure to cite section 667, subdivision (a)(1) requires us to strike the five-year term and remand for a new admission or a court trial on his prior conviction. Not only would that duplicate the proceedings the trial court already conducted, but it would elevate form over substance. Nothing in the record suggests Barraza was unaware he was admitting his prior conviction as a strike as well as a serious felony under section 667, subdivision (a)(1) as pled in the information, so the additional five-year term was valid.

Page 13

Barraza relies on People v. Bryant (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1584, but it is distinguishable. In that case, the court found the defendant could not be subject to additional sentencing allegations following his no contest plea because the allegations required proof of facts not admitted by the defendant during his plea to the base offenses. (Id. at pp. 1594-1596.) Here, by contrast, Barraza admitted he suffered the 1997 attempted robbery conviction, the fact necessary to support the imposition of the five-year term under section 667, subdivision (a).