When a defendant admits a prior conviction after being advised of and waiving only the right to trial, that admission can be voluntary and intelligent even though the defendant was not told of, and did not expressly waive, the concomitant rights to remain silent and confront adverse witnesses, if the totality of circumstances surrounding the admission supports such a conclusion. Here, appellant was represented by counsel, and had just undergone a jury trial. He therefore would have understood his right to confront witnesses. The prior conviction he admitted was based on a guilty plea, at which he would have received Boykin-Tahl advisements. Under the totality of circumstances, the Court of Appeal did not err in concluding that appellant had voluntarily and intelligently admitted his prior conviction.