Reko D. LEVELS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Court of Appeals of Indiana2012-08-15No. No. 82A01-1201-CR-25

972 N.E.2d 972

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed Levels' convictions because the trial court failed to provide adequate advisement of the consequences of not demanding a jury trial, rendering any waiver invalid.

Reko Levels was charged with domestic battery and public intoxication and proceeded to a bench trial after which he was convicted of battery as a lesser included offense and public intoxication. Levels appealed, arguing that he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial. At his initial hearing, the trial court informed Levels of his right to a jury trial but did not adequately explain the consequences of failing to request one, including the requirement that any demand be made in writing and submitted no later than ten days before trial. Although Levels mentioned wanting a jury trial "ten days ahead of time," this casual reference did not constitute a knowing waiver because he was not properly advised by the court of the formal requirements and consequences.

The appellate court emphasized that valid waiver of a jury trial requires affirmative advisement from the trial court explaining both the deadline for making a written demand and the consequence that failure to do so results in loss of the right. Because the trial court's advisement fell short of these requirements, Levels' failure to file a formal demand could not be treated as a waiver.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether failure to demand a jury trial constitutes a valid waiver without proper court advisement
What information must be communicated to a defendant regarding jury trial rights and deadlines
Whether a defendant's informal reference to a timeline demonstrates knowing waiver of jury trial rights

Procedural posture

Levels appealed his convictions from a bench trial, challenging whether he validly waived his right to a jury trial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

OPINION

BAILEY, Judge.

Case Summary

Reko D. Levels appeals his convictions of battery and public intoxication, both class B misdemeanors. We reverse.

Issue

The sole issue for our review is whether Levels waived his right to a jury trial.

Facts and Procedural History

In November 2011, Levels was charged with domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor and public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor. At the November 10, 2011, initial hearing, the trial court advised Levels that he had the right to a “public and speedy trial, by court or by jury....” Tr. at 4. Later in the hearing, Levels told the trial court that he wanted a jury trial “ten days ahead of time.” Tr. at 10. Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Levels of battery as a class B misdemeanor, a lesser included offense of domestic battery, and public intoxication as a class B misdemeanor. Levels appeals.

Discussion and Decision

Levels’ sole contention is that he did not waive his right to a jury trial. The right to a jury trial in misdemeanor cases is controlled by Criminal Rule 22, which provides:

A defendant charged with a misdemean- or may demand trial by jury by filing a written demand therefor not later than ten (10) days before his first scheduled trial date. The failure of the defendant to demand a trial by jury as required by this rule shall constitute a waiver by him of trial by jury unless the defendant has not had at least fifteen (15) days advance notice of his scheduled trial date and of the consequences of his failure to demand a trial by jury.

This Court has previously explained that a waiver is not valid unless the trial court advises a defendant of the consequences of his failure to demand a jury trial no later than ten days prior to the trial date. Vukadinovich v. State, 529 N.E.2d 837, 838 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). It is fundamental error for a court to deny defendant a jury trial without first eliciting a personal waiver from him. Id. There can be no waiver absent the trial court’s affirmative advisement to a defendant that he waives his right to a jury trial unless he demands it no later than ten days prior to the scheduled trial date. Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310, 1311 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Further, where the defendant is not advised by the court as required by the rule, his failure to request a jury trial cannot be deemed a waiver. Wilson v. State, 453 N.E.2d 340, 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1983).

Here, the trial court advised Levels at his initial hearing that he had a right to a jury trial. However, the trial court failed to adequately advise Levels of the consequences of failing to demand a jury trial. The court did not mention the necessity of making such a request no later than ten days prior to the scheduled trial date, and at no time did the trial court disclose that the failure to make the request would waive Levels’ right to a jury trial. There is also no indication that Levels knew that the demand had to be in writing. Because the advisement was insufficient, there was no valid waiver of a jury trial.

Reversed.

RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

. We disagree with the State’s contention that the advisement was unnecessary in this case because Levels explicitly indicated his awareness of this requirement by stating I want a jury trial too ... ten days ahead of time.’ Tr. at 10. Rather, we agree with Levels that his reference to "ten days ahead of time” does not reveal that he knew the request had to be in writing or even what the ten days had to be ahead of.