State v. Spurlock
Docket: No. 2013-KA-0068
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 19, 2013; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Reginald Spurlock is appealing his conviction and four-year sentence for simple escape under La. R.S. 14:110(A). Initially, he pled not guilty and was appointed counsel. A probable cause hearing was held, and he later waived his right to a jury trial, opting for a bench trial. Following his conviction, Spurlock filed motions for a new trial and appeal; the former was denied, while the latter was granted. A review of the case revealed one error, specifically that Spurlock filed his appeal before sentencing, which does not necessitate corrective action as established in prior case law, allowing appeals taken before sentencing to proceed. During the trial, Spurlock was charged after escaping custody at the police station following an attempted purse snatching. He argues that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial, citing insufficient evidence to demonstrate informed consent. He claims the minute entry reflecting his waiver is inadequate and points to discrepancies between the trial transcript and the minute entry, arguing that the transcript should take precedence. The State contends that Spurlock's counsel filed the waiver in open court and that Spurlock's lack of objection signifies his acquiescence to a bench trial. However, the absence of a specific acknowledgment from Spurlock regarding the waiver undermines the State's position. Previous case law emphasizes the necessity for a clear record of the defendant's understanding and acknowledgment of waiving a jury trial, which Spurlock asserts is missing in his case. He seeks an evidentiary hearing to clarify whether his waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. A defendant's right to a jury trial cannot be deemed waived unless there is evidence showing that the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. In the case referenced, the trial court's minutes indicated that the defendant was informed of his right to a jury trial and had requested one, but no transcript confirming a formal waiver was available. If the trial court determines that the defendant did not validly waive this right, it must overturn the conviction and sentence and grant a new trial. The preferred method for ensuring a valid waiver involves the trial judge advising the defendant on the record, allowing either a written or oral waiver. While a detailed colloquy is not mandated, some acknowledgment from the defendant is necessary. Due to the absence of a transcript verifying the defendant's understanding and acknowledgment of the waiver, the matter is being remanded for an evidentiary hearing to assess whether the defendant, Mr. Spurlock, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to a jury trial.