People v. Blancett, B277433M

In 2014 Dakota Blancett pleaded guilty to two counts of child molestation and was sentenced to three years in prison.
In July 2016 the Board of Parole Hearings determined Blancett met the Mentally Disordered Offender (MDO) criteria (Pen. Code, § 2962) and conditioned parole on treatment; Blancett petitioned the trial court under § 2966(b) to contest that determination.
The trial court appointed counsel immediately before the hearing; counsel requested a court (bench) trial and the court asked Blancett once whether he was “okay” with a court trial, to which he replied yes. No detailed advisement or colloquy occurred.
Experts produced split written evaluations; Atascadero State Hospital examiner testified Blancett suffers from pedophilia and presents substantial danger; the trial court found Blancett met § 2962 beyond a reasonable doubt and committed him to involuntary treatment.
Blancett appealed, arguing his waiver of the jury-trial right was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blancett validly waived his right to a jury trial in an initial MDO commitment proceeding	The court may accept a waiver where counsel requests a bench trial and defendant verbally agrees; waiver was adequate	Waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court failed to personally advise Blanchett of jury-trial mechanics, did not elicit an informed colloquy, and counsel was appointed moments before waiver	Reversed: waiver was invalid. Court must personally advise petitioner of jury right and obtain a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver before accepting a bench trial unless substantial evidence shows incapacity to waive

People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (Cal. 2015) (trial court must personally advise MDO defendant of right to jury trial; personal, knowing, voluntary waiver required)
People v. Sivongxxay, 3 Cal.5th 151 (Cal. 2017) (knowing and intelligent waiver assessed by totality of circumstances; recommends robust colloquy explaining jury mechanics and confirming consultation with counsel)
People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (Cal. 2015) (parallel statutory interpretation principle applied to similar statutory language)