In People v. Balinton (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 587, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of murder which were charged without specifying the degree, but where a multiple murder special circumstance was alleged. (Balinton, at p. 589; see 190.2, subd. (a)(3).) The trial court made a section 1192 determination of the degree of the murders and ruled that both murders were in the second degree. (Balinton, at p. 589.) The People appealed, contending that in making a section 1192 ruling the trial court had usurped the function of the jury. (Balinton, at pp. 589-590.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that section 1192 obligated the trial court to determine the degree of guilt and permitted a finding of second degree murder because the degree of murder was not specified in the accusatory pleading. The court stated that, even though a true finding of the special circumstance would compel a first degree murder conviction as a matter of law, a charge of first degree murder could not be implied when the accusatory pleading did not specify the degree. ( People v. Balinton, supra, 9 Cal. App. 4th at p. 590.) In reaching this conclusion, the court stated that it was obligated to follow existing case law that strictly and literally applied sections 1157 3 and 1192 to prevent the implication of a first degree murder charge, plea, or conviction even "to the extent that form may triumph over substance." (Balinton, at p. 590.)