Rolando Santamaria v. State, 11-17-00064-CR

Appellant Rolando Santamaria, a Mexican permanent resident and massage therapist, was indicted for two counts of sexual assault (second-degree felonies) and one count of attempted sexual assault (third-degree felony), each involving a different victim.
Santamaria waived jury trials in writing for all three causes and proceeded to bench trials; the State and trial court consented and approved the waivers.
At a pretrial hearing the court asked about age, education, and English ability; Santamaria reported an elementary education, limited English reading/writing, but said he did not need an interpreter and that he understood the waivers.
The trial court explained the nature and consequences of a jury waiver on the record and confirmed Santamaria’s understanding and voluntary agreement.
The court found Santamaria guilty on all three counts and sentenced him to concurrent terms (15 years for each sexual-assault conviction; 10 years for attempted sexual assault).
On appeal Santamaria argued his elementary education rendered his jury-waiver involuntary or unintelligent; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Santamaria’s elementary education rendered his written and on-the-record waiver of jury trial involuntary, unknowing, or unintelligent	Santamaria: elementary education meant he lacked the cultural/legal background to intelligently waive a jury right	State: waiver complied with Tex. Crim. Proc. art. 1.13; court adequately explained waiver and confirmed understanding despite limited education	Court held waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; waiver requirements met and inquiry adequate; issue overruled

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (constitutional waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (standards for effective waiver)
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (waiver inquiry depends on circumstances)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (waiver standards)
Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276 (waiver principles)
Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (Article 1.13 governs jury-waiver procedure)
Guillett v. State, 677 S.W.2d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (waiver jurisprudence)
Samudio v. State, 648 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (waiver jurisprudence)
Martinez v. State, 449 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (trial court’s colloquy can support waiver for non-English speakers)
Smith v. State, 363 S.W.3d 761 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (adequacy of jury-waiver explanation and form)
Hoang v. State, 825 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992) (effective waiver for non-English-speaking defendant)