DELION LAMONT ZEIGLER, 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.
Delion Zeigler was convicted of cocaine possession after a bench trial following his waiver of jury trial rights. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that Zeigler did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial because the trial court failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the waiver.
The defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. A valid waiver requires either a written waiver or a sufficient oral colloquy in which the trial court verifies the defendant's understanding of the value of a jury trial and the likely consequences of the waiver. Here, neither requirement was satisfied.
[1] A defendant's waiver of the right to a jury trial must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent, and this must be affirmatively shown by the record.
[2] A trial court must conduct a sufficient inquiry to ascertain that a defendant understands the consequences of waiving a jury trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“a defendant's knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of a jury trial must be shown affirmatively from the record below”
Establishes the standard of proof required to demonstrate valid jury trial waiver
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceZeigler was charged with possession of cocaine. During a pretrial colloquy, the defendant's counsel proposed a nonjury trial in exchange for the state…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.260 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Delion Lamont Zeigler, challenges the trial court’s judgment and sentence for the crime of possession of cocaine. We find that the appellant did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial.
The appellant was charged with possession of cocaine in violation of section 893.13(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1991). After the appellant’s motion to dismiss was denied, the following colloquy took place:
MR. BONITTO (DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL): Judge, we would like to set it for pretrial — a nonjury trial if the State would.
THE COURT: What’s the offer?
MRS. OBER (STATE): I offered a minimum six months probation and a drug evaluation and misdemeanor court costs.
THE COURT: If they (state) agreed to a nonjury. Do you want a nonjury trial? That is I’ll determine what the facts are, we won’t pick a jury. We won’t pick six people.
THE DEFENDANT: If you pick the jury how long will it take? Do I have to wait a month, a week? THE COURT: Yeah, about another month before you can get a jury trial. If you want a nonjury trial you can have it next Friday.
THE DEFENDANT: All right.
THE COURT: You want it next Friday?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
After the appellant’s nonjury trial, he was found guilty as charged. The appellant was subsequently adjudicated guilty and sentenced to eighteen months probation. The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
We agree with the appellant’s first contention that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial. However, wé reject without discussion the appellant’s second contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal since the state introduced competent evidence which was inconsistent with the appellant’s theory of events. See State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla.1989).
With regard to the appellant’s first contention, a defendant’s knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of a jury trial must be shown affirmatively from the record below. Johnson v. State, 411 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). A defendant may in writing waive a jury trial with the consent of the state pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.260. While noncompliance with this technical requirement of a written waiver of a jury trial is permissible where there is no harm shown, it must appear in the record that the trial court inquired into the defendant’s waiver of a jury trial or conducted a sufficient inquiry. Harringer v. State, 566 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). An appropriate oral colloquy will focus a defendant’s attention on the value of a jury trial and should make a defendant aware of the likely consequences of the waiver. See Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1990).
In the instant ease, the record contains no written waiver of the appellant’s right to a jury trial and the trial court did not conduct a personal inquiry in open court to verify the appellant’s understanding of the waiver. Therefore, since the trial court failed to ascertain that the appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a trial by jury, there is no evidence to indicate a valid waiver. Accordingly, we reverse the appellant’s sentence and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zinnerman v. State, 985 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…no more material than the omission of reference to the 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…
-
Pete v. State, 666 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ppellant challenges his conviction and sentence following a non-jury trial. The record reflects that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry in open court prior to accepting appellant’s waiver of jury trial.1 Compare Zeigler v. State, 647 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As a result, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial was knowing and intelligent. See Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1990) (an appropriate oral colloquy should focus def…
-
Bullock v. State (15th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…defendant's waiver is voluntary, knowing and intelligent; Tucker, 559 So. 2d at 220; Kelly, 797 So. 2d at 1280; Sinkfield, 681 So. 2d at 839, and 2) the inquiry must affirmatively appear on the record; see Upton, 658 So. 2d at 87; Ziegler v. State, 647 So. 2d 292, 293 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Tosta v. State, 352 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Further, Florida courts have also held that "[a]n appropriate oral colloquy will focus defendant's attention on the value of jury trial and should make a defendant awa…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Tucker v. State, 559 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1990)
- Cirio v. State, 440 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Johnson v. State, 411 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Harringer v. State, 566 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)