What is the legal test for advising a defendant of the penalty consequences of admitting a prior criminal conviction?

"A defendant who admits a prior criminal conviction must first be advised of the increased sentence that might be imposed. [Citations.] However, unlike the admonition required for a waiver of constitutional rights, advisement of the penal consequences of admitting a prior conviction is not constitutionally mandated. Rather, it is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure. [Citations.] Consequently, when the only error is a failure to advise of the penal consequences, the error is waived if not raised at or before sentencing." (People v. Wrice (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 767, 770-771; In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864.) Here, as defendant acknowledges, his trial counsel "concurred in [his] admission and did not object" that the trial court failed to advise defendant it might revoke his driver's license for 10 years. The claim is therefore forfeited. (See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. 2 [the correct legal term for loss of a right based on failure to assert it in a timely fashion is forfeiture, not waiver].)

In any event, the requirement that a defendant be advised of penal consequences of a plea or admission "relates to the primary and direct consequences involved in the criminal case itself and not to secondary, indirect or collateral consequences. [Citations.] A collateral consequence is one which does not 'inexorably follow' from a conviction of the offense involved in the plea" or true finding as to the enhancement allegation admitted. (People v. Crosby (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1355; see People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 634 ["If the consequence is only collateral, no advisement is required"].) Here, defendant's driver's license was revoked pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23597, which provides that "a court may order a 10-year revocation of a driver's license of a person who has been convicted of three or more separate [DUI] violations" in

Page 5