NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

2020 IL App (3d) 180553-U

Order filed November 25, 2020 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2020 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF )

ILLINOIS, ) 

 ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) 

 ) 

JODIE L. BONDS, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 21st Judicial Circuit, 

Kankakee County, Illinois. 

Appeal No. 3-18-0553 

Circuit No. 16-CM-1008 

Honorable 

Kathy S. Bradshaw-Elliott, 

Judge, Presiding. 

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE SCHMIDT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Holdridge and Wright concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to a jury trial.

¶ 2 Defendant, Jodie L. Bonds, appeals her conviction for criminal damage to property. 

Defendant contends that the Kankakee County circuit court failed to properly admonish her before

she waived her right to a jury trial. We affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND
2 

¶ 4 The State charged defendant with criminal damage to property (720 ILCS 5/21-1(a)(1)

(West 2016)). During a court appearance, with defendant present, defense counsel requested that 

the court set the matter for a bench trial. The court stated “[o]kay. October—oh, set for—” and 

defense counsel responded “[b]ench, [Y]our Honor.” The court then addressed defendant, stating 

“[o]kay. Tell me the difference—because I’m recording up here, and I have to make sure you know 

the difference between a jury and a bench.” Defendant responded that “[t]he bench is where you 

are deciding after the hearing.” On that same day, defendant filed a written jury waiver which 

states, “I hereby waive a jury trial in the above entitled cause and consent to trial before the court.”

¶ 5 The court ultimately held a bench trial and found defendant guilty. The court sentenced 

defendant to 12 months’ conditional discharge. Defendant appeals. 

¶ 6 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 7 Defendant argues that the circuit court failed to adequately admonish her before she waived 

her right to a jury trial. Defendant contends the court did not inform her that she had the right to a 

jury trial and failed to determine that she knew the difference between a jury and bench trial. We 

find the court did not err as the record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived 

her right to a jury trial. 

¶ 8 As an initial matter, we note that defendant forfeited her right to challenge her jury waiver 

because she failed to raise the issue in the circuit court. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 

(1988). Defendant acknowledges this forfeiture but asks that we review the issue under the second 

prong of the plain error doctrine. Under that prong, a reviewing court may remedy a “clear or 

obvious” error when “that error is so serious that it affected the fairness of the defendant’s trial 

and challenged the integrity of the judicial process.” People v. Piatkowski, 225 Ill. 2d 551, 565 

(2007). The first step in applying the plain error doctrine is to determine if an error occurred. Id.
3 

¶ 9 To be valid, a jury waiver must be knowingly and understandingly made. People v. Bracey, 

213 Ill. 2d 265, 269 (2004). “[W]hile the circuit court must insure that a defendant’s jury waiver 

is understandingly made, no set admonition or advice is required before an effective waiver of that 

right may be made.” People v. Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d 462, 469 (1997). Whether a jury waiver is valid 

depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Id. “[J]ury waivers are valid when 

made in open court by defense counsel ‘in defendant’s presence where defendant gave no 

indication of any objection.’ ” People v. Turner, 375 Ill. App. 3d 1101, 1108 (2007) (quoting 

People v. Frey, 103 Ill. 2d 327, 332 (1984)). “[T]he existence of a written waiver supports a finding 

of a knowing waiver when accompanied by defense counsel’s request for a bench trial made in 

open court and in the defendant’s presence.” Id. 

¶ 10 Here, defendant was present when defense counsel requested a bench trial, and she did not 

voice any objection to the request. Further, at that point, the court explicitly asked her if she knew 

the difference between a bench and jury trial and her response indicated that she knew a bench 

trial meant the judge would decide the outcome. Additionally, on the same day her counsel 

requested the bench trial in her presence, she filed a written jury waiver, which further supports 

that she knowingly waived her right to a jury trial. See id. at 1109. Taking these facts together, we

conclude that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her right to a jury trial. Therefore, we 

find no error, and as a result, no plain error. 

¶ 11 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 12 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County. 

¶ 13 Affirmed.