Opinion ID: 1369544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to allow Storey to waive jury trial

Text: Storey claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the trial court's decision [r]efusing to allow Tim to waive a jury trial because Mo. Const. Art. I [Section] 22(a) does not require respondent's consent. Appellate counsel testified: [T]he defense raised the claim and I do not think the State consented, and the judge simply denied it. I mean, I since had subsequent thoughts about it. I might raise it now, try to, you know, challenge it as a denial of . . . the Missouri Constitution, but I certainly didn't think of that back then. I just felt as though there wasn't a valid claim. The motion court held: Counsel made a conscious decision to not raise the issue because the statute permitted such a waiver only by agreement by the State and no such agreement was in the record. Ms. Wafer was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue. Punishment is different than guilt. A defendant has no constitutional right to have a jury assess punishment. State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209, 219 (Mo. banc 1996). Section 565.006.3, RSMo 1993, provides: If a defendant is found guilty of murder in the first degree after a jury trial . . ., the defendant may not waive a jury trial of the issue of the punishment to be imposed, except by agreement with the state and the court. Storey exercised his right to a jury at the guilt phase of his trial and received a jury for his guilt phase. He did not have a right to waive a jury for punishment, Taylor, 929 S.W.2d at 219, and the State did not grant him the privilege. Appellate counsel did not err in deciding not to appeal this jury waiver claim.