Court Opinion

ID: 9950956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 13:07:55.565335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:31.410844
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Frazier, 2024-Ohio-935.]

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                        HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO,                                    :   APPEAL NO. C-230177
                                                      TRIAL NO. B-2203993
       Plaintiff-Appellee,                        :

 vs.                                              :       O P I N I O N.

DAMON FRAZIER,                                    :

   Defendant-Appellant.                           :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 15, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Bryan R. Perkins, for Defendant-Appellant.
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}   Damon Frazier appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with

firearm specifications following a bench trial. In four assignments of error, Frazier

argues that the trial court violated his right to a jury trial, his conviction was not

supported by sufficient evidence and was contrary to the manifest weight of the

evidence, and the sentence was contrary to law.

       {¶2}   In his first assignment of error, Frazier contends that the trial court

violated Frazier’s constitutional right to a jury trial when the trial court proceeded to

a bench trial without first addressing Frazier in open court and confirming that his

waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, as required by R.C.

2945.05.

       {¶3}   To be a valid jury waiver, under R.C. 2945.05, the waiver “must be (1) in

writing, (2) signed by the defendant, (3) filed, (4) made part of the record, and (5)

made in open court.” State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350, 2007-Ohio-4277, 872

N.E.2d 279, ¶ 9. Absent strict compliance with those five elements, a trial court does

not have jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial. State v. Pless, 74 Ohio St.3d 333, 658

N.E.2d 766 (1996), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Taylor, 1st Dist. Hamilton

No. C-110062, 2011-Ohio-4648, ¶ 4.

       {¶4}   To satisfy the “open court” requirement, there must be some evidence

in the record that the defendant, while in the courtroom and in the presence of counsel,

acknowledged the jury waiver to the trial court. Lomax at ¶ 49. Although Frazier

executed a written waiver, there is no evidence in the record that the waiver was made

in open court. Absent such evidence, the waiver is invalid. See id. The state concedes

                                               2
                      OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

that the trial court did not address the written jury waiver in open court, and therefore,

lacked jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial.

       {¶5}    Accordingly, we sustain the first assignment of error, reverse the

judgment of the trial court, and remand the cause to the trial court for a new trial.

Frazier’s remaining assignments of error are made moot by our disposition of his first

assignment of error, and we do not address them.

                                                Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.

       Please note:
               The court has recorded its own entry this date.

                                                 3