Rodriguez v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Hinsley v. State

    280 P.3d 354 (Okla. Crim. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Stating that although a defendant may waive his or her right to a jury trial, in this case the defendant's judgments and sentences were reversed on appeal upon the court's conclusion that the record was not sufficient to show a competent, knowing and intelligent waiver of that right

    In this Court's other published cases on this issue, the opinions indicate that the trial transcripts show the trial court and/or defense counsel explained the right to a jury trial and questioned the defendants to ensure their waivers were voluntary. See Long, 2003 OK CR 14, ¶ 3, 74 P.3d at 107.See also Kerr, 1987 OK CR 136, ¶¶ 12–13, 738 P.2d at 1372;Hatch v. State, 1983 OK CR 47, ¶ 12, 662 P.2d 1377, 1381;Colbert v. State, 1982 OK CR 174, ¶ 13, 654 P.2d 624, 627–28;Frazier v. State, 1982 OK CR 182, ¶ 6, 654 P.2d 639, 641;Rodriguez v. State, 1982 OK CR 53, ¶ 2, 644 P.2d 564, 565;Beck v. State, 1981 OK CR 30, ¶¶ 6–7, 626 P.2d 327, 328–29;Cole v. State, 1977 OK CR 279, ¶ 13, 569 P.2d 470, 472–73;Wabaunsee v. State, 1976 OK CR 187, ¶ 3, 554 P.2d 36, 37–38;Hayes, 1975 OK CR 193, ¶ 7, 541 P.2d at 211;Shelton v. Page, 1967 OK CR 101, ¶¶ 5–6, 429 P.2d 525, 526;Butler v. Page, 1966 OK CR 156, ¶¶ 9–15, 421 P.2d 276, 278–79.¶ 6 There is no record, through transcript or any detailed memorandum, of the questioning or advisement of rights which may have preceded Hinsley's oral waiver, or any document signed by Hinsley or his counsel reflecting the waiver.