Court Opinion

ID: 9395941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 21:04:42.003463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.841805
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
               in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                          2023 IL App (3d) 190538-U

                                   Order filed May 18, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                       APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                              THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                       )      Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                        )      of the 21st Judicial Circuit,
                                                       )      Kankakee County, Illinois,
                Plaintiff-Appellee,                    )
                                                       )      Appeal No. 3-19-0538
                v.                                     )      Circuit No. 18-CM-275
                                                       )
      RONNIE C. CANNON,                                )      Honorable
                                                       )      Kathy S. Bradshaw-Elliott,
                Defendant-Appellant.                   )      Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Hettel and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1             Held: Defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury
                     trial.

¶2             Defendant, Ronnie C. Cannon, appeals from his domestic battery conviction. Defendant

     argues the case should be remanded for a new trial because his jury waiver was invalid. We

     affirm.

¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND
¶4          The State charged defendant with domestic battery (720 ILCS 5/12-3.2(a)(2) (West

     2018)). The court appointed counsel to represent defendant.

¶5          On March 6, 2019, counsel told the court, “We would like a bench trial date ***.” The

     court then addressed defendant:

                    “Okay. I need to make sure—and appreciate you dressed for court. Tell

                    me the difference between a bench and a jury, sir.

                              THE DEFENDANT: Bench trial is with you. A jury is with 12

                    people.

                                                    ***

                              THE COURT: Show [defendant] is signing the jury waiver. So you

                    got to be here August 14th—

                              [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We will be here.

                              THE COURT:—at 1:30. If not, I have to put on the record that you

                    can be convicted and sentenced without being here. Okay?

                              THE DEFENDANT: I will.”

     Defendant filed his written jury waiver, and the court set the matter for a bench trial. The jury

     waiver stated, “I hereby waive a jury trial in the above entitled cause and consent to trial before

     the court” and was signed by defendant.

¶6          On August 14, 2019, the court acknowledged defendant’s presence in court with his

     attorney. The court confirmed that the parties intended to proceed to a bench trial. Following a

     bench trial, the court found defendant guilty of domestic battery. The court entered a conviction

     and ordered defendant to pay fines.

¶7                                             II. ANALYSIS

                                                      2
¶8            On appeal, defendant argues that he entered an invalid jury waiver and asks this court to

       remand for a new trial. We find the court did not err as the record establishes that defendant

       knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.

¶9            At the outset, we note defendant forfeited review of this issue by not objecting to it at

       trial. People v. Enoch, 122 Ill. 2d 176, 186 (1988). Defendant acknowledges this forfeiture and

       asks that we conduct plain error review. Defendant argues that his unknowing and involuntary

       jury waiver is a clear error subject to reversal under the second prong of the plain error doctrine.

       The plain error doctrine permits a reviewing court to 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

       of the plain error doctrine is to determine whether an error occurred. People v. Eppinger, 2013 IL

       114121, ¶ 19.

¶ 10          The United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution afford a defendant the

       fundamental right to a jury trial. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 8, 13.

       “ ‘ “Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent

       acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” ’ ”

       People v. Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d 52, 67-68 (2008) (quoting People v. Johnson, 75 Ill. 2d 180, 187

       (1979), quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)). A valid jury trial waiver must

       be knowingly and understandingly made. People v. Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d 265, 270 (2004). “A valid

       waiver exists if there is an express statement by defense counsel in open court, in the defendant’s

       presence, without objection from him or her, that the defendant opts to waive his jury trial right

       in favor of a bench trial.” People v. Rincon, 387 Ill. App. 3d 708, 718 (2008) (citing People v.

       Elders, 349 Ill. App. 3d 573, 578 (2004)). The circuit court has a “duty of ensuring that a

                                                          3
       defendant waives the right to a jury trial expressly and understandingly.” Bannister, 232 Ill. 2d at

       66. When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial, he “must understand—with its attendant

       consequences—*** that the facts of the case will be determined by a judge and not a jury.” Id. at

       69. “However, a trial court need not give any specific admonition or advice for a defendant to

       make an effective jury waiver.” Id. at 66. “The determination of whether a jury waiver is valid

       cannot rest on any precise formula, but rather depends on the facts and circumstances of each

       particular case.” Id.

¶ 11           Section 115-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 requires that a defendant who

       wishes to waive his right to a jury trial do so in writing. 725 ILCS 5/115-1 (West 2018). “[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.”

       People v. Turner, 375 Ill. App. 3d 1101, 1108 (2007). “A defendant is bound by defense

       counsel’s waiver of a trial by jury when defendant is present in open court and does not object

       when the jury waiver is made or is explicitly discussed.” Id. We review de novo the issue of

       whether defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to a jury trial. Bracey, 213

       Ill. 2d at 270.

¶ 12           Here, the facts and circumstances surrounding defendant’s jury waiver established that

       defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver. Defendant appeared with counsel on the date

       counsel requested to proceed to a bench trial and filed the written jury waiver. The court

       conducted an inquiry into defendant’s knowledge of the difference between a bench and jury

       trial. Despite the relative brevity of the court’s admonishment, defendant correctly described the

       difference between a jury trial and a bench trial. Defendant also stated that he understood the

       attendant consequence of waiving his right to a jury trial—that defendant’s trial would be in

                                                        4
       front of the judge. Defendant submitted a signed written jury waiver further indicating his desire

       to proceed to a bench trial. Defendant also made no objection to defense counsel’s request to

       proceed to a bench trial on the date of his waiver or the date of trial. See Turner, 375 Ill. App. 3d

       at 1108. Thus, the record establishes that defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right

       to a jury trial.

¶ 13           In reaching our holding, we find that People v. Chaplin, 2020 IL App (3d) 180731-U, the

       case relied on by defendant, is distinguishable from the instant case. In Chaplin, this court

       determined that defendant’s presence with counsel in court when counsel requested a bench trial

       plus defendant’s written jury waiver was insufficient to establish that defendant made a knowing

       and voluntary jury waiver because the record failed to show that the court had any discussion

       with defendant regarding the nature of a jury trial or bench trial. Id. ¶¶ 14, 20-21. In contrast,

       here, the court briefly discussed with defendant the difference between a jury and bench trial,

       and defendant’s response indicated that he clearly understood the difference between the two

       types of trials. Supra ¶ 12. Finding no error occurred, we need not proceed further with the plain

       error analysis.

¶ 14           We note that a jury trial is “ ‘one of the most revered of all rights acquired by a people to

       protect themselves from the arbitrary use of power by the State.’ ” Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269

       (quoting People ex rel. Daley v. Joyce, 126 Ill. 2d 209, 212 (1988)). While we acknowledge that

       a court is not constitutionally required to advise a defendant of his right to a jury trial or provide

       an explanation regarding the ramifications of waiving that right, we urge the court to participate

       in a discussion that ensures that an untrained defendant fully understands the right that they are

       waiving. See People v. Steiger, 208 Ill. App. 3d 979, 981 (1991). Admonishments that include an

       explanation of the nature of a jury trial versus a bench trial, defendant’s constitutional right to

                                                          5
       demand a jury trial, defendant’s participation in selecting a jury of his peers, that the waiver is

       defendant’s choice, and that the implications of waiving that right result in a bench trial in front

       of a judge alone, avoids unnecessarily risking a defendant’s entry of an involuntary or ill-

       informed jury waiver.

¶ 15                                           III. CONCLUSION

¶ 16          For the forgoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Kankakee County is

       affirmed.

¶ 17          Affirmed.

                                                         6