In State v. Nieto, 118 Ariz. 603, 608, 578 P.2d 1032, 1037 (App. 1978), the superior court advised the defendant as to nearly all of his rights, omitting only the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. The Court held that it was "inconceivable" that the defendant could have been ignorant of his right against self-incrimination. Id. No such advice was given here. In Nieto, we nevertheless remanded to determine whether the defendant understood the effect his prior conviction would have on his sentence. Id. at 609, 578 P.2d at 1038. The superior court had failed to inform the defendant of the sentencing range with a prior conviction. Id.