 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Holmes3/31/2003
Reporter of Decisions
Submitted on Briefs: January 23, 2003
Jeffrey Holmes appeals from the judgment of conviction entered in the District Court (Bridgton, Eggert, J.) following a bench trial finding him guilty of one count of operating under the influence (OUI) (Class D) in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411(1) (1996), with one prior OUI offense within the past ten years. Holmes asserts the District Court erred when it found he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. We agree and vacate his conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
Holmes was charged with operating under the influence and was arraigned in the District Court (Goranites, J.) on December 19, 2001. He attended the arraignment without legal representation and entered a plea of not guilty. No transcript of the arraignment proceedings exists; the record, therefore, does not indicate whether the court adequately advised Holmes he had a right to a jury trial, how to secure a jury trial, or failure to make a timely request constituted a waiver of that right. See M.R. Crim. P. 5(d)(2) & 22(a). The court scheduled a bench trial for January 30, 2002.
Two days before the scheduled bench trial, Holmes requested a continuance due to his inability to retain counsel. The District Court (Beaudoin, J.) granted the request and rescheduled the trial for March 27, 2002. On March 22, 2002, Holmes hired an attorney, who immediately filed a motion for an enlargement of time in which to file a jury trial demand, and demanded a jury trial. The demand for a jury trial was made ninety-three days after Holmes's arraignment.
On March 27, 2002, the District Court (Powers, J.) denied Holmes's jury trial request, finding that he waived his right to a jury trial by failing to make a demand within twenty-one days of his arraignment. A transcript of the arraignment proceedings did not exist for the court to evaluate; the court assumed the arraigning court had properly notified Holmes that he had twenty-one days to demand a jury trial. The court, however, instructed Holmes to file a motion for reconsideration if Holmes located the transcript.
Holmes was thereafter convicted following a bench trial in the District Court, and sentenced to jail for a term of seven days. This appeal followed Holmes's timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Holmes asserts that the District Court did not provide appropriate instructions at his arraignment proceeding pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 5(d), and that the record is devoid of any evidence that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. " review the record in the light most favorable to the [trial] court's ruling to determine whether the record will support a finding of a knowing and intelligent waiver." State v. Walls, 501 A.2d 803, 805 (Me. 1985). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that the trial court's waiver finding was clearly erroneous. See State v. Morrison, 567 A.2d 1350, 1351 (Me. 1990).
The Declaration of Rights, contained in our constitution, guarantees all criminal defendants the right to a trial by jury. Me. Const. art. I, § 6; State v. Sklar, 317 A.2d 160, 165-66 (Me. 1974). To protect this right, Rule 5(d)(2) requires the District Court, at arraignment, to inform a person charged with a Class D crime of that person's right to a trial by jury and of that person's duty to demand a jury trial. See M.R. Crim. P. 5(d)(2). The defendant's failure to demand a jury trial within twenty-one days of arraignment constitutes a waiver of that right pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 22(a). M.R. Crim. P. 22(a); State v. Lenfestey, 557 A.2d 1327, 1328 (Me. 1989).
Page 1 2 3 Maine DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|