WILLIAM J. OTIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed grand theft conviction because trial court failed to ensure defendant's oral waiver of jury trial was knowing and intelligent, lacking both written documentation and judicial inquiry into understanding.
A defendant's oral waiver of the right to jury trial is ineffective when the trial court fails to ensure the waiver is knowing and intelligent and there is no written waiver.
[1] A waiver of the constitutional right to jury trial must be knowing and intelligent, requiring the trial court to inquire whether the defendant understands the right being…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Clearly, it cannot be said that he effectively waived his right to trial by jury.”
Court's conclusion regarding the defective nature of the oral waiver without inquiry into understanding or written documentation.
William Otis was convicted of grand theft under Florida Statutes section 812.014(2)(b). At trial, Otis orally waived his right to jury trial through a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bench Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Otis appeals his conviction for grand theft, a violation of section 812.-014(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Appellant raises several points on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. He contends the trial court erred in accepting his oral waiver of the right to jury trial.
We agree.
The record of appellant’s waiver consists of the following colloquy: THE COURT: It’s set for nonjury.
MR. WESTFIELD: Yes. Your Honor, at this time we will waive trial by jury for the record. THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Otis? You are waiving trial by jury? THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You are going to let the Court determine it then? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Set it for nonjury at 1:30 on February 10th. There is no record of any written waiver signed by appellant.
Additionally, the trial judge made no attempt to determine whether appellant understood and therefore intelligently waived his right to jury trial. Clearly, it cannot be said that he effectively waived his right to trial by jury. See Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.260; Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Sessums v. State, 404 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for new trial. OTT, C.J., and BOARDMAN and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zinnerman v. State, 985 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…defendant’s “right to participate in jury selection” or to the rule “that a jury verdict must be unanimous for a conviction.” Tucker, 547 So. 2d at 271. We acknowledge that in Zeigler v. State, 647 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), and Otis v. State, 444 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), we held that the defendant’s oral waiver of the right to jury trial was invalid where the trial court conducted a colloquy substantially similar to the colloquy conducted by the trial court in the instant case. To the extent that…
-
Winchel v. State, 456 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…ether he understands his right to jury trial and whether he has voluntarily agreed to waive that right, the defendant is entitled to reversal of his nonjury trial conviction. Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); see also Otis v. State, 444 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.260. Here, appellant was not present at the time of the oral waiver, he did not state his concurrence with the action of his trial counsel, and he did not sign a written waiver. Thus, appellant did not voluntarily…
-
Williams v. State, 521 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…he judge asked appellant if he wished to waive his right to a jury trial. The only mention of a jury trial is contained in defense counsel’s statement: “I would like to try this thing nonjury.” This is not a sufficient waiver. Under Otis v. State, 444 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) and Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), we reverse and remand since there is no indication that appellant knowingly waived his right to a jury trial. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.260. SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and THREAD…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Sessums v. State, 404 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)