Opinion ID: 2540167
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Taylor's Jury Waiver Remains Valid Even Though It Preceded The Sixth Amendment Jury Sentencing Cases

Text: Contrary to Taylor's assertions, his 1991 waiver of jury sentencing is not invalidated because it preceded case law outlining a Sixth Amendment right to jury sentencing. When determining whether a defendant has the requisite understanding to render an affirmative knowing, voluntary and intelligent waiver, courts do not require a defendant to know if the source of the right being waived is the constitution or a statute. Instead, the relevant assessment is whether the defendant understood the consequences of the right when he gave it up. In State v. Hunter , this Court opined: The test for determining if the waiver is made intelligently and knowingly depends on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. Defendant's knowledge of all relevant facts need not appear in the trial record to support a finding that the waiver . . . was proper. To limit the focus of the inquiry to what a defendant said just before the waiver of counsel was permitted would forbid the broad inquiry necessary to a fair assessment of whether defendant knew and appreciated what he was doing when he waived his right to counsel. 840 S.W.2d 850, 858 (Mo. banc 1992) (discussing that a defendant's waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent) (internal citations and quotations omitted). In finding the defendant's waiver was sufficiently knowing and intelligent in Hunter, this Court noted that the defendant understood the judge, the right being waived, the choices being made, and had the capacity to think logically at the time he waived counsel. Id. at 859. When Taylor waived jury sentencing as part of his plea in 1991, it did not matter whether his right to jury sentencing at that time stemmed from the constitution or a statute. [16] The source of Taylor's right to be sentenced by a jury was irrelevant to his strategic choice to avoid jury sentencing. The record is clear that Taylor understood that a consequence of his plea and waiver in 1991 was that he would be sentenced by a judge, not by a jury. His jury waiver was not motivated by the source of his right to be sentenced by a jury but by his strategic choice to avoid jury sentencing because of the potential harsh consequences. As discussed above, his jury waiver was not simply an adverse collateral consequence of his guilty plea. Instead, his waiver of jury participation in 1991 was a purposeful strategy to attempt to avoid the death penalty. When Taylor pleaded guilty and waived jury involvement in his case in 1991, he received what he wanted at that time he did not want to face a jury, no matter under what statute or constitutional provision a right to jury sentencing existed. The record supports a finding that Taylor made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver. He understood the judge's inquiries about his plea and waiver, he understood that his case would not be presented to a jury, and there is no argument that he was incapable at the time of thinking logically and choosing strategically to forego jury participation in his case. He acknowledged that no promises were made to him when he pleaded guilty, and he knew that the judge would be considering whether to sentence him to death. Taylor's 1991 purposeful, strategic acquiescence to be sentenced by a judge, instead of by a jury, did not evaporate in light of future case law that clarified a Sixth Amendment right for capital defendants to be sentenced by a jury. Contrary to Taylor's arguments, the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 125 S.Ct. 2582, 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005), does not render his jury waiver invalid or require that he be allowed to evade the consequences of his 1991 jury waiver. Halbert addressed a Michigan state law that provided that defendants who pleaded guilty or nolo contendere could appeal only by leave of the court. Id. at 609-10, 125 S.Ct. 2582. Under the law, indigent defendants only were provided counsel in certain situations. Id. at 609, 125 S.Ct. 2582. The indigent defendant in Halbert was informed of circumstances in which counsel may have been appointed, but he was not expressly informed that, absent such circumstances, counsel would not be provided. Id. at 643 n. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2582. The defendant requested appellate counsel, but his request was denied. Id. at 615-16, 125 S.Ct. 2582. The United States Supreme Court ultimately found that the defendant was wrongly denied counsel, finding that Michigan's practice of providing counsel violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Id. at 610, 125 S.Ct. 2582. It rejected Michigan's argument that the defendant had waived his right to appointed appellate counsel by entering a plea of nolo contendere, finding: At the time [the defendant] entered his plea, [he], in common with other defendants convicted on their pleas, had no recognized right to appointed appellate counsel he could elect to forgo. Id. at 623, 125 S.Ct. 2582. Halbert noted that the trial court had not informed the defendant, simply and directly, that there would be no access to appointed counsel in his case. Id. at 624, 125 S.Ct. 2582. Whereas the trial court in Halbert did not expressly, simply and directly inform the defendant of his rights, the record in Taylor's case shows that the trial court did simply and directly discuss with Taylor that he was foregoing jury participation in his case. Taylor was not confused about what he was foregoing, and he received the sentencing that he strategically chose. Unlike the defendant in Halbert, who was alleged to have impliedly waived a right to his detriment, Taylor clearly and unequivocally rejected his opportunity to have his case heard by a jury to obtain his desired judge sentencing. [17]