Do the Due Process Clauses and Boykin v. Alabama mandate a colloquy before accepting stipulations to offense elements that increase sentencing exposure?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Maine Supreme Judicial Court Sitting as the Law Court (“Law Court”) recently ruled that the Due Process Clauses of the federal constitution do not require a court to conduct a clear, on-the-record waiver colloquy before it accepts a defense attorney’s stipulations to elements of offenses, including elements that, by themselves, expose a defendant to increased punishment. State v. Bilynsky, 2021 ME 56, | 4-5, 263 A.3d 163. The Law Court’s decision expands a division among the circuits and state courts of last resort. The questions presented are: (a) Do the Due Process Clauses and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) mandate that, before a trial court accepts stipulations as to elements of offenses, including elements that by themselves increase sentencing exposure, it conduct an on-the-record colloquy demonstrating that the defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waives the attendant constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a jury trial? (b) Where a defendant’s attorney, but not the defendant himself, signs a stipulation to elements of offenses, including an element that, by itself, increases sentencing exposure, and there is no colloquy demonstrating that the defendant personally assents to the stipulations, may waiver of the attendant constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and the right to a jury trial be presumed?