244 P.3d 816
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Grand jury indicted Stewart on 13 domestic-violence offenses against his partner and her son.
- Trial court conducted a lengthy on-record colloquy and accepted Stewart’s waiver of the right to a jury trial.
- Stewart and counsel signed a Waiver of Jury Trial stating waiver of a jury and any sentence-enhancement facts.
- Bench trial resulted in convictions on 11 of the charged offenses.
- After sentencing, Stewart sought a new attorney, then moved to vacate the waiver; court denied the motion.
- On appeal, the court addressed whether waiver of jury trial can be conditioned by recognizing that a waiver also foregoes the right to file a new-trial motion, and whether the state constitution requires pleading enhancement factors in the indictment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether waiver of jury trial was knowingly and voluntarily made. | Stewart claims he did not know waiver included losing ability to move for a new trial. | Stewart argues lack of knowledge about ancillary consequence taints validity. | Waiver valid; knowledge of direct waiver suffices. |
| Whether Oregon law requires pleading enhancement factors in the indictment. | State argues no such requirement under Oregon law. | Stewart relies on constitutional/indictment controls. | Not needed to discuss; rejected without discussion (still affirmed on other grounds). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Villareall, 57 Or.App. 292 (1982) (abuse of discretion review for motion to withdraw waiver of jury trial)
- State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (1992) (waiver is relinquishment of a known right)
- Gonzalez v. State of Oregon, 340 Or. 452 (2006) (collateral consequences not required to be advised; deportation not mandatory disclosure)
- Rodriguez-Moreno v. State of Oregon, 208 Or.App. 659 (2006) (collateral consequences not generally advised; sex-offender-registration examples discussed)
- Jones v. Cupp, 7 Or.App. 415 (1971) (remote consequences not required to be advised)
- Clark v. State of Oregon, 220 Or.App. 197 (2008) (waiver of right to jury determination of sentencing facts requires knowing about the right itself)
- State v. Deloretto, 221 Or.App. 309 (2008) (appeals on new-trial grounds governed by ORCP 64 B; abuse-of-discretion review)
- Cadigan, 212 Or.App. 686 (2007) (motions for new trials; related standards of review)