Case Title: State v. Jelks

Citation: 105 Ariz. 175, 461 P.2d 473

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1969-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
105 Ariz. 175 (1969) 461 P.2d 473 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Charles Lee JELKS, Appellant. No. 1847. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. November 19, 1969. Rehearing Denied December 23, 1969. *176 Gary K. Nelson, Atty. Gen., by Carl Waag, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Leonard M. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee. Vernon B. Croaff, Former Public Defender, by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. HAYS, Justice. Charles Lee Jelks, defendant and appellant, was tried and convicted of robbery and sentenced to a prison term of ten to twelve years. Jelks and co-defendant were tried jointly for the crime. The victim of the robbery, one Epifanio Guerrero, was seated in a doorway on East Jefferson Street in Phoenix on the morning of May 26, 1967, when he was approached by two men, one of whom had a knife. The two men kicked Guerrero, and took money from his billfold. After the scuffle, from which Guerrero received a cut on his left hand, the two attackers fled down the street. A Phoenix policeman, Officer Calleo, was passing in his patrol car at the time when he noticed a number of men waving to attract his attention, and he observed the defendants coming toward him followed by the victim with blood on his face and hands. Officer Calleo stopped the defendants and placed them under arrest. At trial, Jelks and his co-defendant were represented by the office of the Public Defender Two attorneys, Mr. Thinnes and Mrs. Bailey, were designated by that office, but there is no indication that either was assigned to any particular defendant. On appeal, defendant Jelks assigns as error (1) that his counsel's waiver of jury trial was invalid because of the absence of personal examination by the trial judge, (2) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because he and a co-defendant were represented by the same court appointed *177 counsel, and (3) that he was not identified as the perpetrator of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. We reject each of defendant's assignments of error, and affirm the conviction. As the trial commenced, defense counsel and both defendants were present in the courtroom. The jury was waived, in the presence of the defendants, in the following manner: The trial court made no independent personal examination of either defendant concerning the waiver of jury. Defendant argues that the failure of the trial court to conduct such an examination and to advise defendant of his constitutional rights to a jury trial made the waiver invalid, as violative of his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process of law. We cannot agree. The right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental in the American scheme of justice, and is preserved by both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (cf. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 20 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1968) and Article II, Sections 23 and 24 of the Arizona Constitution, A.R.S. It is well established also that the right to a jury trial may be waived, where an accused is aware of the right and voluntarily and intelligently relinquishes it. Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 50 S. Ct. 253, 74 L. Ed. 854, 70 A.L.R. 263 (1930); State v. Thompson, 68 Ariz. 386, 206 P.2d 1037 (1949); State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 392 P.2d 784 (1964). In Patton, the U.S. Supreme Court spelled out the criteria for determining the validity of such a waiver: It is commonplace that many acts which a litigant is called upon to perform during the course of a judicial proceeding are carried out in the litigant's behalf by his attorney, if he has one. In Hensley v. United States, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 281 F.2d 605 (1960), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote: When the accused is present in the court room and represented by competent counsel, he is bound by the actions and concessions of his counsel. A knowing and intelligent waiver of a jury trial can be exercised through counsel, and need not be made and announced by defendant personally. Counsel should not be relegated to the position of an unreliable mouthpiece. The trial court is entitled to rely on the professional responsibility of defense counsel so that when he notifies the court of the fact that his client wishes to waive a jury trial, such waiver was knowingly and understandingly consented to by his client. Several recent cases in jurisdictions requiring affirmative waiver of the right to a jury trial have held that where defendant's counsel orally waived a jury trial, in defendant's presence, the defendant acquiesced to the waiver by failing to object. People v. Novotny, 41 Ill. 2d 401, 244 N.E.2d *178 182 (1969); State v. Lopez, 22 Utah 2d 257, 451 P.2d 772 (1969); Thompkins v. United States, 251 A.2d 636 (D.C.App. 1969); State ex rel. Derber v. Skaff, 22 Wis.2d 269, 125 N.W.2d 561 (1964); Eliachar v. United States, 229 A.2d 451 (D.C. App. 1967); Hensley v. United States, supra. In California, as defendant argues, the courts have held that an accused must personally express to the court his consent to the waiver, but such rule stems from a provision of the California Constitution permitting waiver only where consent is expressed in open court by the defendant and consented to by defendant's counsel and the prosecution. Arizona has no such requirement in its constitution. The trial court has the duty to see that an accused person's election to waive a jury trial is knowingly and understandingly made. Such a duty cannot be perfunctorily discharged. We are not persuaded, however, that defendant Jelks did not understand what was happening. By permitting his attorney, in his presence and without objection on his part, to waive his right to a jury trial, defendant must be held to have knowingly acquiesced in that decision. In view of the importance of the right of a trial by jury as a fundamental right, it is doubtful that a written waiver signed only by the attorney or an oral waiver by counsel out of the defendant's presence would be sufficient waiver without something of record to show authorization or ratification by the defendant. However, the presence and silent acquiescence of the defendant in this case sufficiently demonstrated the authority of the attorney to speak for Jelks, and made the attorney's statements those of the defendant. In holding as we do, we are mindful of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1969), which requires Federal judges to interrogate personally a defendant who wishes to enter a guilty plea to determine whether the defendant fully understands his rights and the consequences of his act. The McCarthy rule has subsequently been applied to the courts of the several states in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1969). We see nothing in these cases, however, to suggest that the requirement of personal interrogation by the court applies to waiver, by defense counsel, of his client's right to trial by jury. A plea of guilty is much more than a waiver of a Constitutional right; it amounts to a conviction of the offense charged. To hold, as defendant suggests, that the requirement of personal interrogation of an accused by the court applies in all cases where waiver of a fundamental Constitutional right is involved, would lead to a ludicrous result, stripping the defense counsel of his vital role at the trial proceedings. When as a matter of trial strategy defense counsel permits a statement of the defendant to be admitted in evidence, must the court prior thereto explain to the defendant the Constitutional rights which he may be waiving? We do not believe that justice is better served by sacrificing the time honored system of advocacy to the ritual of magic words. Defendant's second assignment of error cites an alleged conflict of interest in that two attorneys of the Public Defender's office jointly represented both Jelks and his co-defendant at trial. Defendant does not, however, point out exactly what the alleged conflict of interest was, other than "the mere fact that two individuals were involved creates a conflict in attitude, in approach, in trial strategy." Brief for Appellant at 22. The matter of representation of two defendants by the same Public Defender has been previously discussed by this Court in State v. Collins, 104 Ariz. 449, 454 P.2d 991 (1969), and State v. Kruchten, 101 Ariz. 186, 417 P.2d 510 (1966). We see no important factual distinction in the present case where two rather than one public defenders jointly represented the co-defendants. In both Collins and Kruchten, we cited with approval the following language *179 in Lugo v. United States, 350 F.2d 858 (9 Cir.1965): We cannot say that a clear conflict of interest occurred in the present case. Defendant has failed to point out any conflict of interest. We hold, therefore, that defendant received the effective assistance of counsel to which he was entitled. Finally, defendant argues that his identity as the perpetrator of robbery was not established at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Both Jelks and his co-defendant are Negroes. At trial, the victim Guerrero did testify that many Negroes looked almost the same to him, but that where their facial features differed he could pick out particular persons. On direct examination of the victim, the following took place: We find nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court could not determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jelks was one of the two perpetrators of the crime. The trial court's finding is supported by the evidence. The conviction is affirmed. UDALL, C.J., and LOCKWOOD, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, J., concur. McFARLAND, Justice (dissenting). The appellant, Charles Lee Jelks (hereinafter called defendant), was tried and convicted of robbery, and received a sentence of from ten to twelve years. He contends that there was not a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial, in that there was not a proper examination and advice of his rights by the trial judge. At the time the matter came on for trial the record shows the defendant was not personally questioned, nor advised of his rights by the court: *180 Because of previous decisions both by the United States Supreme Court and this Court dealing with waiver of fundamental constitutional rights, I am impelled to dissent from the majority opinion. Trial by jury is a fundamental right under the Sixth Amendment, and is guaranteed to the citizens of the several states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 88 S. Ct. 1444, 20 L. Ed. 2d 491. The Court set forth the test to determine if any particular right is protected against state action: The opinion in Duncan expressly approved of waiver of jury trial: But, in order to have a valid waiver by a defendant, he must have a clear understanding of the fundamental constitutional rights he is waiving. There must necessarily be minimum safeguards for the courts to follow in order to determine a valid waiver of those rights. In this area of constitutional law it is axiomatic that courts will indulge every reasonable presumption against a waiver of a fundamental right. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680; and State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 392 P.2d 784. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 89 S. Ct. 1166, 22 L. Ed. 2d 418, requires Federal judges to interrogate personally a defendant who wishes to enter a guilty plea to determine if he fully understands his rights and the consequences of his act and *181 to make this determination a matter of record. The Court stated: The principles enunciated in McCarthy, supra, were held to be applicable to the courts of the several states in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S. Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274: This Court, in State v. Jennings, 104 Ariz. 3, 448 P.2d 59, in discussing the safeguards which courts must employ before accepting a plea of guilty, stated: McCarthy, Boykin and Jennings dealt with a plea of guilty where a defendant waives several fundamental rights. But minimum safeguards are not determined by the number of constitutional rights waived. Lesser standards cannot be applied to a waiver of even a single fundamental right. The right to counsel is included in the Sixth Amendment, along with the right to trial by jury, and the courts have uniformly required that a waiver of this right cannot be presumed from a silent record. The burden is on the trial court to determine clearly, on the record, that it is entered intelligently and competently. Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S. Ct. 884, 8 L. Ed. 2d 70; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461, 146 A.L.R. 357.[1] In Carnley v. Cochran, the Supreme Court, quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, held: To the same effect is Glasser v. United State, supra, where the Court held a waiver of counsel invalid over the government's contention that the defendant, who was an attorney, tacitly waived his right by remaining silent when the trial court appointed Glasser's attorney to represent a co-defendant: The principles have been adhered to by this Court in State v. Anderson, supra, and State v. Reagan, 103 Ariz. 287, 440 P.2d 907. In State v. Anderson, we said: In State v. Reagan, supra, we clearly required the waiver of right to counsel to be spread on the record even for a prior conviction to be used under the recidivist statute. The right of a defendant to confrontation and cross-examination of the witnesses against him is another Sixth Amendment right guaranteed to the citizens of the several states by the Fourteenth Amendment. In Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 1245, 16 L. Ed. 2d 314, the Court applied the same safeguards to this right as had been afforded the right to counsel: In the earlier case of Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S. Ct. 1065, 13 L. Ed. 2d 923, the Court made it plain that federal standards for the protection of the right of confrontation of witnesses applies to the states: This principle was even more forcibly set forth by former Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion in Pointer v. Texas, supra: The facts in the instant case are different from those in the recent case of State v. Little, 104 Ariz. 479, 455 P.2d 453, in which we held the defendant validly waived his right to trial by jury. There the trial court did not rely only on counsel's statement, but satisfied itself from questions directed to the defendant personally, But, implicit in our opinion, was the requirement that the trial judge personally, and on the record, satisfy himself that the defendant intelligently and competently waived his right to a jury trial. But, in the instant case, the record tells us nothing except the statement of counsel that defendant "indicated" to counsel that he wished to waive trial by jury. This is not a positive statement of a waiver. Furthermore, the record shows there were no questions or inquiry directed to the defendant personally by the court. There was only the counsel's statement that defendant had "indicated" to him that he wished to waive a trial by jury. This falls far short of the safeguards required by the above-cited cases, and, by those same cases, this Court is constitutionally restrained from supplying the void in the record by presumptions from a silent record. Carnley v. Cochran, supra; Boykin v. Alabama, supra; State v. Reagan, supra. The standard safeguard, that the trial court advise the defendant personally of his right to trial by jury, and make such inquiry a matter of record, has been proposed as a minimum standard by the American Bar Association's Advisory Committee on the Criminal Trial, and approved by the *185 A.B.A. House of Delegates in August 1968. The recommendation, reasons, and authorities supporting the same are as follows: The advantages of the trial judge making a waiver of a fundamental constitutional right a matter of record do not all lie with the defendant. The state authorities benefit by reducing the number of postconviction attacks together with the resulting problems which beset an appellate court when it is presented a silent record. This was set forth in McCarthy v. United States, supra: I do not believe the record in the instant case shows a valid waiver under the foregoing authorities which establish safeguards for the protection of fundamental constitutional rights. Accordingly, I dissent. [1] Hensley v. United States, 108 U.S.App. D.C. 242, 281 F.2d 605, cited in the majority opinion, was decided in 1960, prior to the decisions in Boykin, McCarthy, Duncan, Carnley, supra, and Brookhart and Pointer, infra. Judge Edgerton, in a strong dissent in Hensley, seemed to have anticipated the direction of these later cases when he wrote: "* * * Waiver involves `voluntary knowing relinquishment of a right.' Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 191, 78 S. Ct. 221, 226, 2 L. Ed. 2d 199 [61 A.L.R.2d 1119]. "I think it an error of law to hold that if he so intended, he showed it in the way the statute requires. I think `the accused' did not, as the statute requires, `in open court expressly waive such trial by jury and request to be tried by the judge.' Within constitutional and statutory limits, the accused is bound by his counsel's acts. But it does not follow that the statutory term `expressly' includes `impliedly' and it does not follow that the statutory term `the accused' includes someone else. * * *"