Meredith v. StateMeredith v. State
Dustin Meredith, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Cаroline County of theft scheme between $1,000 and $10,000 and six counts of theft. Before this Court, he presents one issue for our review: whether the triаl court erred by failing to make a finding on the record that appellant voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial as required by
I.
Appellant was charged by criminal information in the Circuit Court for Caroline County with the offenses of first degree burglary, third degree burglary, fourth degree burglary, theft scheme between $1,000 and $10,000 and eleven counts of theft. He рroceeded to trial before the Circuit Court for Caroline County, after purportedly waiving a jury trial. Pursuant to
Inasmuch as the sole issue on appeal rеlates to whether the trial judge complied with
“THE COURT: All right. [Appellant], um, [Defense Counsel] just told me that you wish to waive your right to a jury trial. What‘s your date of birth?
[APPELLANT]: 6/29/89
THE COURT: How old are you today?
[APPELLANT]: 24.
THE COURT: How much education have you had?
[APPELLANT]: I have a high school diploma.
THE COURT: Can you read and write?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you speak and understand English?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you under the influence of any substance that might affect your judgment? [APPELLANT]: No.
THE COURT: Do you have any disability that might affect your judgment?
[APPELLANT]: No.
THE COURT: You have a right to be tried either by a judge оr a jury in this case. If you, if you were to be tried by a judge, that would be one person who would have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty in order to find you guilty. If you chose a jury you and your lawyer and the State‘s Attorney would pick 12 people from the voter rolls and the driver rolls of Caroline County. They would represent a cross-section of the community and each of the 12 would hаve to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty in order to find you guilty. All 12 would have to agree you were not guilty in order tо find you not guilty. And if they cannot agree, that would be a hung jury and the State could try you over until, until you were found not guilty, not guilty or guilty. You‘ve indicated that yоu wish to waive your right to a jury trial, which means you are selecting a judge trial if you go to trial. Is that correct?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: And is that, is that decision being freely and voluntarily made by you?
[APPELLANT]: Yes it is.
THE COURT: All right, I‘m going to rule that you have knowingly and intelligently waived your right to a jury trial. Thank you very much.”
Appellant did not object to the court‘s ruling and proceeded to trial before the court.
As indicated, the court convicted appellant of theft scheme and six counts of theft and he was sentenced for the theft scheme charge.
This timely appeal followed.
Appellant argues that the court erred by failing to announce on the record that he voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. He argues that the court‘s ruling that he “knowingly and intelligently” waived his right is insufficient to satisfy
The State maintains that the court complied with
III.
We turn to appellant‘s argument that the trial court erred by failing to announce on the record a determination that he voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial.
“A defendant may waive the right to a trial by jury аt any time before the commencement of trial. The court may not accept the waiver until, after an examination of thе defendant on the record in open court conducted by the court, the State‘s Attorney, the attorney for the defendant, or аny combination thereof, the court determines and announces on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily.” (Emphasis аdded).
The waiver of a jury trial is a two-step process. The trial judge must determine that the waiver is knowing and volun
In Valonis & Tyler v. State, 431 Md. 551, 567, 66 A.3d 661, 670 (2013), the Court of Appeals left no doubt that the trial judge must make a determination, on the record, that the defendant‘s wаiver is both knowing and voluntary. In order to guide the trial courts, the Court of Appeals in that consolidated case exercised its discretion under
What was less clear following Valonis was whether an appellate сourt would review a jury trial waiver absent a contemporaneous objection in the trial court. In Nalls & Melvin v. State, the Court of Appeals spoke loud and clear that a contemporaneous objection in the trial court is a necessary predicate for appellate review. After exercising its discretion under
“Going forward, however, the appellate courts will continue to reviеw the issue of a trial judge‘s compliance with
Rule 4-246(b) provided a contemporaneous objection is raised in the trial court to preserve the issue for appellate review.”
Id. (Emphasis added).
In the case sub judice, appellant made no objection below to the waiver procеdure, to its content, or to the trial court‘s announcement as to the “knowingly and intelligently” made waiver of his right to a jury trial. His challenge to the effectiveness of his waiver is not preserved for our review and
JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CAROLINE COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.