State Of Washington, V Michael Germain Mansfield ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
No. 79706-9-I
Respondent,
v. DIVISION ONE
MICHAEL GERMAIN MANSFIELD, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant. FILED: June 3, 2019
LEAcH, J. — Michael Mansfield appeals the trial court’s judgment and
sentence for motor vehicle theft. He claims that he did not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial. We disagree and affirm.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2017, the State charged Mansfield with theft of a motor
vehicle, domestic violence. The trial court held a status hearing on November 8,
2017.
At this hearing, Mansfield’s attorney told the court that Mansfield intended
to waive a jury trial. After Mansfield signed a jury waiver in court, his attorney
submitted it. His attorney then told the court that he had filed the waiver and
thanked the court for providing him time to speak with Mansfield about his right to
a trial by jury.
No. 79706-9 /2
Trial took place on November 27, 2017. Before starting trial, the court had
a colloquy with Mansfield and explained that he had a constitutional right to a trial
by a jury of twelve people and a unanimous verdict. It asked him if he had
discussed this right with his attorney. He said, “Yes.” The court noted that
Mansfield had filed a document giving up his right to a jury trial and asked if that
was true. Again, he answered, “Yes.” Mansfield also agreed that no one had
made any threats or promises in connection with his waiver of the right to a jury
trial.
The court then held a bench trial and found Mansfield guilty of motor
vehicle theft, domestic violence. Mansfield appeals.
ANALYSIS
Mansfield claims that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
waive his right to a jury trial, so the court violated his constitutional right when it
accepted his written and oral waivers.
Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee a criminal defendant
the right to a jury trial.1 A defendant may waive this right provided he does so
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.2 In Washington, this waiver may be
written or oral.3 Although CrR 6.1(a) requires the defendant to file a written
waiver, a defendant’s oral waiver that is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
U.S. CONsT. amend. VI; WAsH. C0NST. art. I, § 21; City of Pasco v.
1
Mace, 98 Wash. 2d 87, 99, 653 P.2d 618 (1982).
2 State v. Hos, 154 Wash. App. 238, 249, 225 P.3d 389 (2010).
~ State v. Ramirez-Dominguez, 140 Wash. App. 233, 240, 165 P.3d 391
(2007) (citing State v. Steciall, 124 Wash. 2d 719, 724-25, 881 P.2d 979 (1994)).
-2-
No. 79706-9 I 3
satisfies constitutional requirements.4 If a defendant submits a written waiver,
neither the federal nor the state constitution requires that the trial court have a
colloquy with the defendant on the issue.5
Because the right to jury trial is a constitutional one, an appellate court
reviews de novo the validity of a defendant’s jury trial waiver.6 The State has the
burden of proving the validity of the waiver.7 When an attorney submits a jury
waiver form that he and his client have signed, he “as an officer of the court,
represents that his client knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily relinquishes his
right to a jury trial.”8
Mansfield and his attorney signed, and his attorney submitted, a written
waiver of his right to a jury trial. Mansfield provides no evidence to support his
assertion that the written waiver was deficient.9 Also, the trial court engaged in a
colloquy with Mansfield about his rights to a jury trial. During the colloquy the
court described his jury trial rights to him, and he then orally confirmed his
waiver. So Mansfield waived his right to a jury trial in writing and orally in open
4Hos, 154 Wn. App. at250.
~ State v. Downs, 36 Wash. App. 143, 145-46, 672 P.2d 416 (1983).
6 Ramirez-Dominquez, 140 Wash. App. at 239.
~ Hos, 154 Wash. App. at 249-50 (citing State v. Wicke, 91 Wash. 2d 638, 645,
591 P.2d 452 (1979)).
8 Downs, 36 Wash. App. at 146.
~ Mansfield identifies two sources of authority for his arguments. Neither
case helps him. In State v. Williams, 23 Wash. App. 694, 697-98, 598 P.2d 731
(1979), the defendant did not sign a written waiver, and the court did not conduct
a colloquy. But both occurred here. In State v. Borboa, 157 Wash. 2d 108, 118,
135 P.3d 469 (2006), the defendant did not know he had the right to a jury trial
on the facts involved in aggravating factors in sentencing. But, here, Mansfield
concedes knowledge of his right.
-3-
No. 79706-9 /4
court. The record sufficiently establishes that Mansfield made a knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary waiver.
CONCLUSION
We affirm. The State has shown that Mansfield made a knowing,
intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial.
/
p
WE CONCUR:
I! .
I