The decision in People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, held that a defendant has no state constitutional right to a jury trial on prior convictions: "The right, if any, to a jury trial of prior conviction allegations derives from sections 1025 and 1158, not from the state or federal Constitution." ( Id. at p. 23.) The court adhered to the analysis of People v. Kelii (1999) concerning the scope of the statutory right to a jury trial on prior convictions ( id. at pp. 23-28), and held that a violation of the statutory right is subject to harmless error analysis under People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. (Id. at p. 29-30.) With respect to the scope of the federal constitutional right to a jury trial relating to prior conviction allegations, the court discussed the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) as follows: "Amicus curiae argues Apprendi gives defendants a right to have a jury decide whether a prior conviction is a serious felony for purposes of the Three Strikes law. Apprendi, however, reaffirms that defendants have no right to a jury trial of 'the fact of a prior conviction' citation, and here, at least, only the bare fact of the prior conviction was at issue, because the prior conviction (kidnapping) was a serious felony by definition under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(20). We do not now decide how Apprendi would apply were we faced with a situation like that at issue in Kelii, where some fact needed to be proved regarding the circumstances of the prior conviction -- such as whether a prior burglary was residential -- in order to establish that the conviction is a serious felony." ( Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 28.) In People v. Epps (2001) the Supreme Court held that the 1997 amendment to section 1025 restricted, but did not eliminate, the right to jury trial on prior conviction allegations. The court further addressed the claim that, contrary to its holding in People v. Kelii (1999) 21 Cal.4th 452 that the trial court is to decide whether a prior conviction is a serious felony, Apprendi, 530 U.S. 466 gives a defendant the right to have the jury decide this issue. The court pointed out that Apprendi "reaffirms that defendants have no right to a jury trial of 'the fact of a prior conviction.'" the court added that, in the case before it, "only the bare fact of the prior conviction was at issue, because the prior conviction (kidnapping) was a serious felony by definition under section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(20). We do not now decide how Apprendi would apply were we faced with a situation like that at issue in Kelii, where some fact needed to be proved regarding the circumstances of the prior conviction -- such as whether a prior burglary was residential -- in order to establish that the conviction is a serious felony." ( People v. Epps, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 28.)