delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The defendant, John B. Chavez, was charged by information with attempted second degree burglary1 and with being a habitual criminal.2 After a trial at which he did not testify, the jury convicted Chavez of both charges. Chavez appealed the convictions, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the trial court’s advisement regarding the defendant’s right to testify was insufficient to support an inference that the defendant’s relinquishment of his right to testify was a valid waiver of that right. People v. Chavez, 832 P.2d *11511026 (Colo.App.1992). rari and now affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. We granted certio-
I.
The facts developed at trial show that Chavez was apprehended near the crime scene by one of the residents after he attempted to enter their duplex by forcing the door and was observed attempting to enter the neighboring duplex.
After the prosecution rested, the trial court advised Chavez, pursuant to People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504 (Colo.1984). The complete advisement follows:
THE COURT: All right, we’ll start over on the Curtis advisement, under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Colorado, you have a right to testify if you want to. You also have a right not to testify. If you do testify, the district attorney will be allowed to cross-examine you and will be able to ask you about your four prior felony convictions we talked about yesterday.
Do you understand all that?
THE DEPENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: A little louder.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you made a decision?
THE DEFENDANT: I’m not.
THE COURT: You’re not going to testify?
THE DEFENDANT: No.3
The defendant did not testify, and the jury found him guilty o'f attempted second degree burglary and, then, after a habitual criminal phase, of being a habitual criminal. The trial court sentenced Chavez to life in prison.
II.
In People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504, two questions were before the court: what are the prerequisites of an effective waiver of a criminal defendant’s right to testify, and what are the duties of the trial court concerning that right. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify which is based in the due process clause of the federal constitution. Curtis, 681 P.2d at 510. Because the right to testify is a fundamental right, a waiver of that right must be voluntary, knowing, and intentional. Id. at 515. In order for a defendant to make such a knowing, voluntary, and intentional decision, a defendant must be aware of the right to testify, the consequences of testifying, and the right to take the stand regardless of counsel’s advice to the contrary.4 Id. at 514.
To that end, we stated that a trial court must advise a criminal defendant, outside the hearing of the jury:
that he has a right to testify, that if he wants to testify then no one can prevent him from doing so, that if he testifies the prosecution will be allowed to cross-examine him, that if he has been convicted of a felony the prosecutor will be entitled to ask him about it and thereby disclose it to the jury, and that if the felony conviction is disclosed to the jury then the jury can be instructed to consider it only as it bears upon his credibility.
Id. While Curtis did not prescribe an exact litany for a trial court to repeat in giving an advisement to a defendant, the record must show that the defendant was properly advised and that the defendant, if he or she chooses not to testify, waived this right voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See Tyler v. People, 847 P.2d 140 (Colo.1993).
*1152Here, the trial court informed the defendant that he had the right to testify or not to testify. The trial court also told the defendant that the prosecution would be allowed to cross-examine him, and that his four prior felony convictions could be disclosed to the jury if he chose to testify. No explanation was given Chavez of the limited purpose for which such felonies could be admitted. The trial court neither informed the defendant that the decision to testify or not was a personal one, nor informed him adequately of the consequences of testifying.5
We find that this advisement was both defective under Curtis and affirmatively misleading in its content. Chavez was charged not only with the substantive crime of attempted burglary but also of being a habitual criminal. Chavez was not informed that, if he testified, his prior felony convictions could be considered only to impeach his credibility. See C.R.E. 608; § 18-90-101, 6A C.R.S. (1987). By its silence, the trial court left the impression that the prior convictions could be used as substantive proof for the habitual criminal phase of the trial.6 Clearly the inference raised by the trial court’s incomplete advisement is wrong. If Chavez chose to testify, he would be entitled to an instruction explaining to the jury that evidence of his prior felonies was admitted only for the limited purpose of impeaching his credibility. Curtis, 681 P.2d at 514. Further, the prosecution at all times had the burden to prove the defendant’s prior felonies at the habitual criminal phase of the trial. Since the trial court gave the defendant no explanation of these important, but technical, legal concepts, Chavez reasonably could have inferred that the prosecution would be relieved of its burden to prove his prior felonies if he testified and were forced to acknowledge his prior felony convictions. The inadequate advisement denied Chavez of an opportunity to make a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to testify.
We reiterate that there is no prescribed litany or formula which must be followed in advising the defendant of his right to testify. However, the advisement given must include the Curtis elements and avoid misleading a defendant about the consequences of a decision not to testify. In this case, the trial court misinformed the defendant of the purposes for which prior felony convictions could be used if the defendant testified and the advisement cannot be upheld.
III.
The People contend that any errors in the trial court’s advisement to Chavez were harmless because he stated on the record during the habitual criminal phase of the trial, “No, I don’t want to testify.” As noted above, the defendant also responded “No” when he was asked by the trial court during the guilt phase, “You’re not going to testify?” In addition, the People assert that the defendant must show that he was prejudiced by the defective advisement and that he would have testified if he had been advised properly. Since nothing in the record indicates that the defendant was forced to remain silent, the People conclude that the defendant’s convictions should be upheld. We disagree.
*1153The defendant’s statement that he did not want to testify is evidence of a voluntary waiver, but it does not indicate that the waiver was knowing and intelligent. We considered a similar issue in the context of a defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel in People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87 (Colo.1989). We held that the defendant’s conduct effected a “voluntary” waiver when the defendant refused “without good cause to proceed with able appointed counsel.” Id. at 94. However, we also held that “the waiver is not valid until the court ensures that the waiver is made knowingly and intelligently.” Id. (emphasis in original). While the record contained ample evidence that the defendant voluntarily waived his right to counsel by his obstreperous conduct, his conduct could not “be considered a valid waiver of his right to counsel in the absence of proof that he was adequately informed so as to understand the consequences of his actions.” Id. at 97.
The same analysis applies here. The defendant’s statements satisfy the “voluntary” part of the waiver requirement. However, without an adequate advisement of his right to testify, the defendant’s statements do not demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to testify. Thus, there is no valid waiver.
We also decline to adopt the People’s suggestion that we require the defendant to prove that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s inadequate and misleading advisement. This is clearly contrary to the Curtis advisement requirement, which we have repeatedly affirmed. See, e.g., Tyler, 847 P.2d at 142 (quoting with approval elements of Curtis advisement); Roelker v. People, 804 P.2d 1336 (Colo.1991) (same). We adhere to the Curtis advisement requirement.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
VOLLACK, J., dissents, and ROVIRA, C.J., and ERICKSON, J., join in the dissent.. §§ 18-2-101; 18-4-203, 8B C.R.S. (1986 & 1992 Supp.).
. § 16-3-101, 8A C.R.S. (1986).
. There is a similar, even briefer, on-the-record advisement given by the trial court during the habitual criminal phase of the trial. It suffers from the same infirmities as the advisement above.
. While it is true that the proper allocation of authority between attorney and criminal defendant is a principal value underlying our decision in Curtis, it is not the only important interest involved. We also stated that “The defendant’s opportunity to place himself and his viewpoint before the finder of fact is necessary to legitimate the outcome of the trial. [The defendant] has the right to know, as he suffers whatever consequences there may be, that it was the claim that he put forward that was considered and rejected.” Id. at 514.
. We reject the People’s contention that the trial court's use of the pronoun "you” adequately informed the defendant that the right to testify was his personal right. While the defendant probably understood that he personally would take the stand if he chose to testify, nothing in the trial court’s remarks told him that the decision was his alone to make and that his attorney could not override his choice. Perhaps more importantly, as explained in the text, the advisement given during the guilt phase of the trial served to affirmatively mislead the defendant as to the consequences of testifying. The People do not assert that the other missing elements of Curtis are to be found elsewhere in the record.
. We also granted certiorari to consider whether our pre-Curtis decision in People v. Chavez, 621 P.2d 1362 (Colo.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 1028, 101 S.Ct. 3019, 69 L.Ed.2d 398 (1981), requires any advisement in addition to the Curtis requirements in a case involving a defendant charged with being a habitual criminal. Because both parties conceded in oral argument that Chavez required no additional advisement under the facts of this case, we dismiss certiora-ri on this issue as improvidently granted.