Court Opinion

ID: 9741379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:54:28.692541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:23.751410
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in result.
The written advisement given Hadley comports with the requirement that one accused of a misdemeanor be advised of his right to trial by jury. In Eldridge v. State (1994) 2d Dist.Ind.App., 627 N.E.2d 844, we interpret ed Hannctr-Womack v. State (1993) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 623 N.E.2d 439, and stated that the record must:
“[PJeflect that a defendant charged with a misdemeanor be fully advised of the right to a trial by jury and of the effect of the failure to assert that right and that it reflect that the defendant was capable of reading a written advisement and of understanding the advisement, whether it be written or oral. Such a record is necessary to support the inference that the waiver was personal when the waiver is based upon the defendant’s failure to make a timely request for a trial by jury. Thus, the decision in Hannar-Womack is consistent with this opinion because the record was devoid of any indication that Hanna-Womack was advised of the consequences of her failure to timely demand a jury trial.”
The advisement here comports with that requirement. For this reason, I concur in the decision affirming the conviction.