Opinion
04-21-00259-CR
10-26-2022
Bradley Paul SWEENEY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Do Not Publish
From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. 19-11-230-CRW Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Appellant Bradley Paul Sweeney waived his right to a jury trial in anticipation of entering a plea bargain with the State. However, Sweeney failed to appear for his plea hearing and remained on fugitive status until he was rearrested. The State withdrew the plea bargain, but Sweeney made no motion to vacate his jury waiver. At the time of trial, the trial court upheld Sweeney's jury waiver. Sweeney was convicted at the conclusion of his bench trial. Sweeney now appeals the trial court's decision to uphold his jury trial waiver.
Background
Sweeney was the subject of an active arrest warrant when he was arrested on March 23, 2019. That afternoon, a patrol officer noticed Sweeney standing outside of an SUV in front of his home. The officer turned his patrol car around to see if Sweeney remained standing by the vehicle. Sweeney was not there, but his car door was open. The officer parked his car nearby and waited. As anticipated, the SUV drove past. The officer followed the vehicle. The SUV accelerated to a speed of more than sixty miles per hour in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone. The officer attempted to stop the SUV with lights and siren, but the SUV failed to yield. It eventually led the officer back to Sweeney's address. Sweeney exited with his hands in the air. The officer searched Sweeney incident to the arrest and discovered a small bag of crystal methamphetamine, which the officer collected and documented as evidence.
Sweeney was charged in November 2019 with evading arrest and possessing methamphetamine. The State offered a plea bargain of five years in exchange for Sweeney's guilty plea. In February 2020, Sweeney rejected the State's plea bargain in favor of trial. A week later, the State filed a notice to enhance Sweeney's sentence based on his prior convictions, which significantly increased the punishment he faced at trial. On the day of Sweeney's scheduled jury trial, February 24, 2020, Sweeney asked to be assigned a different attorney. The judge denied his request. The State offered a revised plea agreement of seven years. Sweeney agreed to serve seven years in prison and signed a jury trial waiver. The colloquy for Sweeney's waiver proceeded as follows:
THE COURT: We're back on the record in 19-11-230, State vs. Bradley Paul Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney, can you speak, read, and write the English language?
SWEENEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: There's a document here defendant's jury waiver. Is that your signature?
SWEENEY: Yes, sir, it is.
THE COURT: Did you either read this yourself or did [your attorney] read it to you?
SWEENEY: Yes.
THE COURT: And you understand that you have a right to have a jury determine whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty of any offense you're charged with. And even if you plead guilty or no contest to that offense, you still have the right to have a jury determine within the law what your punishment is. And by signing this document you're giving up that right?
SWEENEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. And are you satisfied with the work that your attorney has done for you in this case?
SWEENEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Counsel, do you believe your client understands the nature of the rights he's giving up on this jury waiver?
SWEENEY'S ATTORNEY: I do, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sweeney, I find that you gave up your right to a trial by jury knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily and I will approve it and I will set this for March the 16th -
THE CLERK: Sixteenth, yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- for further proceedings. I'll release you. Make sure you're back in court that date.
SWEENEY: Yes, sir.
The trial court dismissed the jury and scheduled the parties for a plea hearing the following month. But the following month, Sweeney did not appear. The State withdrew the offer.
After Sweeney was rearrested, and in preparation for the next trial date, the State refiled its notice of intent to enhance Sweeney's sentence with his prior convictions on April 21, 2021. On May 3, 2021, Sweeney wrote to the trial court to renew his request for a different attorney. When Sweeney appeared in court on June 1, 2021, he reiterated his request for a different attorney. The trial court asked Sweeney if he preferred to have a jury assess punishment if Sweeney were found guilty. Sweeney did not answer the question. He said he rejected trial and that he rejected everything. Accordingly, the trial court noted that the jury would not assess punishment if Sweeney were convicted.
When asked if Sweeney preferred to have his jury trial waiver vacated, he responded that he wanted more time to talk to his attorney or to be assigned a new attorney. He stated he did not understand what was going on. The trial court upheld the jury waiver and scheduled a bench trial that went forward the next day on June 2, 2021. Sweeney was convicted. Sweeney now appeals the trial court's decision to uphold the jury trial waiver.
Standard of Review
"A request to withdraw a jury waiver is addressed to the discretion of the trial court." Talbert v. State, 529 S.W.3d 212, 215 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. ref'd) (citing Balderas v. State, 517 S.W.3d 756, 799 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016)); accord Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Therefore, on review, we examine "whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles" in its ruling. Talbert, 529 S.W.3d at 215.
Jury Trial Waiver and Appellate Waiver
A. Parties' Arguments
Sweeney argues that his jury trial waiver was invalid and should not have been upheld. The State responds that Sweeney's waiver was valid, and that if it was not, Sweeney established no harm. The State also argues that Sweeney waived his complaint by not raising it in the trial court.
B. Law
"A defendant has an absolute right to a jury trial." Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 197 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If a defendant chooses to waive his right to a jury trial, "the State must establish, on the record, [the] defendant's express, knowing, and intelligent waiver of jury trial." Id. However, a defendant's failure to present a claim of a purportedly invalid jury trial waiver to the trial court results in the alleged error not being preserved for appeal." Hutchinson v. State, No. 11-12-00124-CR, 2014 WL 5529150, at *1 (Tex. App.-Eastland Oct. 9, 2014, no pet.) (citing Tex.R.App.P. 33.1; Beason v. State, No. 11-11-00308-CR, 2013 WL 4715784, at *3 (Tex. App.-Eastland Aug. 30, 2013, no pet.)).
C. Analysis
Sweeney never requested that his jury waiver be vacated. The trial court asked Sweeney if he would like his jury trial waiver to be vacated, but Sweeney did not answer the question. He responded with confusion, at which point the trial court decided to go forward with the filed waiver. Sweeney's complaints to the trial court were focused on being assigned a different attorney and regaining the State's plea bargain. Because this case falls procedurally under Rule 33.1 rather than the applicable law regarding a defendant's request for a jury waiver to be vacated, we overrule Sweeney's sole issue on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Hutchinson, 2014 WL 5529150, at *1.
Conclusion
Because Sweeney did not raise his sole complaint on appeal in the trial court, we overrule it pursuant to Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.