Opinion ID: 1154942
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: waiver of the right to a jury trial

Text: Finally, Garibay maintains that he did not properly waive his right to a jury trial. The record indicates the contrary: THE COURT: .... Mr. Garibay, do you think you understand what is going on here? MR. GARIBAY: Yes. THE COURT: You understand that you are waiving, this is giving up, your right to a jury trial? You understand that? MR. GARIBAY: What do you mean? THE COURT: That you are giving up your right to the jury trial. You understand that, sir? MR. GARNETT: Could I have a moment with my client? THE COURT: You may. (Mr. Garnett and Mr. Garibay had a conference off the record) THE COURT: Mr. Garibay, do you now understand  MR. GARIBAY: Yes. THE COURT: That you are  you're giving up your right to a jury trial? MR. GARIBAY: Yes. THE COURT: All right. And you understand that the matter is being submitted to me as the Judge based on the written records? You understand that? MR. GARIBAY: Yes. Report of Proceedings (Non-Jury Trial on Stipulated Facts), at 5-6. [14] The right to a jury trial may be waived. See Bellevue v. Acrey, 103 Wn.2d 203, 207, 691 P.2d 957 (1984). The record indicates such a waiver occurred here. Moreover, Garibay appears to have acted knowingly and intelligently, because when he was confused he did not answer yes, but instead asked the court for clarification. On this record, the bare allegation that Garibay did not understand what he was doing is insufficient to support the contention he was denied his right to a jury trial. The convictions of Valdobinos and Garibay are affirmed. The portion of their sentences based on use of a deadly weapon is invalidated. ANDERSEN, C.J., and BRACHTENBACH, DURHAM, SMITH, GUY, JOHNSON, and MADSEN, JJ., concur.