2014 CO 6
Colo.2014Background
- Marshall Walker, a former middle-school teacher, was charged with multiple counts of sexual exploitation, enticement, and unlawful sexual contact for photographing and sexually abusing three male students.
- One week before trial Walker orally waived his right to a jury; the court conducted a brief on-the-record colloquy but did not enumerate all items in Crim. P. 23(a)(5)(II).
- Walker was convicted on multiple counts and received one determinate sentence and indeterminate sentences on 24 sexual-exploitation counts; he appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Walker’s jury waiver was valid, concluding the trial court’s advisement did not substantially comply with the rule in effect at the time.
- The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether an inadequate Crim. P. 23(a)(5)(II) advisement requires a post-conviction evidentiary hearing and (2) whether Walker’s indeterminate sentences were improper because the sentencing enhancement was not charged or there was no valid jury waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may challenge validity of a jury-trial waiver on direct appeal | Walker: the trial advisement failed Rule 23(a)(5)(II); he is entitled to a hearing and may raise it on direct appeal | State: waiver challenges should be raised post-conviction; direct appeal is not the proper forum | A defendant cannot challenge the validity of a jury-waiver on direct appeal; such challenges must be raised in post-conviction proceedings |
| Standard for an effective jury-trial waiver | Walker: waiver invalid because advisement incomplete | State: waiver valid if personal, knowing, voluntary, intelligent despite imperfect advisement | Waiver is effective only if personally made by defendant and is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; Rule 23 factors guide but strict compliance not mandatory |
| Does an inadequate Rule 23 advisement automatically require an evidentiary hearing | Walker: inadequate advisement itself mandates a hearing | State: inadequate advisement alone insufficient; defendant must allege facts showing waiver was not knowing/voluntary/intelligent | Inadequate advisement does not automatically entitle defendant to an evidentiary hearing; the defendant must allege specific facts that, if true, show the waiver was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent |
| Validity of indeterminate sentences given Apprendi and notice arguments | Walker: Apprendi requires jury finding of facts increasing sentence; information didn’t charge enhancement | State: assume waiver valid for direct-appeal purposes; judicial factfinding permitted when defendant waives jury; information adequately charged offenses | Affirmed indeterminate sentences: Apprendi inapplicable because trial court (not a jury) made findings after an assumed-valid waiver; information was sufficient to give notice of possible indeterminate sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Rice v. People, 565 P.2d 940 (Colo. 1977) (defendant must personally waive jury right)
- People v. Norman, 708 P.2d 1261 (Colo. 1985) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- People v. Dist. Court, 953 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1998) (right to waive jury is subject to regulation)
- People v. Mozee, 728 P.2d 117 (Colo. 1986) (defining voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (judicial factfinding permitted when defendant consents to judicial sentencing enhancements)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Apprendi principles apply to sentencing; distinctions for judicial factfinding when defendant consents)
- People v. Curtis, 681 P.2d 504 (Colo. 1984) (advisements concerning right to testify)
- Moore v. People, 318 P.3d 511 (Colo. 2014) (waiver-of-testimony challenges must be raised post-conviction; informs waiver procedure)