Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. James Anthony REYNOLDS, Appellant; State of Louisiana v. James Anthony Reynolds
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2007-03-08
Citations: 951 So. 2d 518
Docket Number: Nos. 41954-KW to 41956-KW
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. James Anthony REYNOLDS, Appellant. State of Louisiana v. James Anthony Reynolds.
Judges: Before PEATROSS, DREW and MOORE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 951
Pages: 518–520

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. James Anthony REYNOLDS, Appellant. State of Louisiana v. James Anthony Reynolds.
Nos. 41954-KW to 41956-KW.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
March 8, 2007.
Whitley Robert Graves, Benton, for Appellant.
John Schuyler Marvin, District Attorney, John Michael Lawrence, Joseph Andrea Gregorio, Assistant District Attorneys, for Appellee.
Before PEATROSS, DREW and MOORE, JJ.

Opinion:
liThe applicant, James Anthony Reynolds, seeks review of his convictions and sentences for battery of a police officer, hit-and-run driving, and resisting arrest, after consolidation of five bills of information for trial. This court noted potential error patent and requested a response from the litigants on the issue of advisement of right to jury trial and any waiver thereof, resulting from the aggregate possible penalties for the charged offenses.
When separate bills of information are joined for trial, the aggregate punishment which may be imposed determines whether the right to trial by jury exists. State v. Williams, 404 So.2d 954 (La.1981); State v. Comeaux, 408 So.2d 1099 (La.1981). When the total potential punishment exceeds six months' | ¡Imprisonment or a fine in excess of $1,000, an accused is entitled to trial by jury. La. C. Cr. P. art. 779 A. State v. Williams, supra. The charges were not properly consolidated in a single bill of information under La. C. Cr. P. art. 493.1, which is the statutory method of implementing a sentencing cap, and avoiding the necessity of a jury trial. See State v. Hornung, 620 So.2d 816 (La.1993). In the case at bar, the applicant is entitled to a trial by jury.
Although the record contains an acknowledgment of an agreement by the state and the defendant's counsel of a sentencing limitation (that the sentences imposed would not exceed six months or fines in excess of $1,000), this agreement, standing alone, cannot operate to deprive the defendant of the right to be informed of his right to jury trial, and to make an informed invocation or waiver of that right, in the absence of a showing that the stipulation manifested actual knowledge of the right to jury trial, and an informed waiver, as in State v. Knowles, 40,324 (La.App.2d Cir.12/30/05), 917 So.2d 1262.
Because we note, as error patent, the failure to advise the applicant of his right to a trial by jury, we vacate the applicant's convictions and sentences. This decision to remand obviates the need to review the applicant's assignments of error. The matter is hereby remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
DREW, J., dissents with written reasons.