COX
v.
STATE
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.
The court held that a defendant's request for a jury trial made immediately before trial is not untimely if there is no affirmative waiver of the right.
The defendant requested a trial by jury immediately prior to the start of his trial for driving under the influence. The trial court denied this reque…
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 Fundamental Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion and judgment: This is an appeal from a county court conviction for driving while under the influence of alcoholic beverages. This court has examined the record on appeal, the briefs, and heard argument of counsel.
The record discloses that immediately prior to trial, defense counsel requested a trial by jury. The trial court denied the request, stating that it was untimely made. In this, the trial court was in error.
In the instant case, the record is silent as to any affirmative waiver of the right by the defendant. Certainly he did not execute a written waiver pursuant to RCrP 3.260. In the absence of such a waiver, appellant’s conviction must be reversed. Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So.2d 865 (Fla. 1953); Ivory v. State, 184 So.2d 896 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1966). See also Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
The right to trial by jury is a fundamental constitutional right, and the courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 485 (1938). The waiver may not be presumed from a silent record. See Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962).
Accordingly, the conviction sub judice is reversed and the sentence is vacated. Because the defendant has fully served the sentence imposed, should the state choose to retry the defendant, it should be aware of the mandate of North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1968)
- Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1962)
- Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1953)
- Ivory v. State, 184 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)