Balbosa v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Balbosa v. State

581 S.E.2d 402, 260 Ga. App. 876, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1384, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 506

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 2003

DocketA01A1188

StatusPublished

This text of 581 S.E.2d 402 (Balbosa v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balbosa v. State, 581 S.E.2d 402, 260 Ga. App. 876, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1384, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 506 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Chief Judge.

In our unpublished opinion in Balbosa v. State, 250 Ga. App. XXV (July 25, 2001), we agreed with Balbosa that the State did not meet its burden of showing a valid waiver of the right to a jury trial. We applied a harmless error analysis, however, to affirm Balbosa’s conviction because we found that the evidence was overwhelming. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in Balbosa v. State, 275 Ga. 574 (571 SE2d 368) (2002), agreed that Balbosa had not made a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, however, relying upon recent United States Supreme [877]*877Court cases as well as Ninth Circuit and California state cases to conclude that a harmless error analysis may not be applied to jury trial waiver.

Decided April 15, 2003. William J. Mason, for appellant. J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Melvin E. Hyde, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Accordingly, our decision in Balbosa v. State is hereby vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Barnes and Phipps, JJ, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, Chief Judge.

In our unpublished opinion in Balbosa v. State, 250 Ga. App. XXV (July 25, 2001), we agreed with Balbosa that the State did not meet its burden of showing a valid waiver of the right to a jury trial. We applied a harmless error analysis, however, to affirm Balbosa’s conviction because we found that the evidence was overwhelming. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, in Balbosa v. State, 275 Ga. 574 (571 SE2d 368) (2002), agreed that Balbosa had not made a valid waiver of his right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, however, relying upon recent United States Supreme [877]*877Court cases as well as Ninth Circuit and California state cases to conclude that a harmless error analysis may not be applied to jury trial waiver.

Decided April 15, 2003. William J. Mason, for appellant. J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, Melvin E. Hyde, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Accordingly, our decision in Balbosa v. State is hereby vacated, the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this Court, and the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Barnes and Phipps, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

581 S.E.2d 402, 260 Ga. App. 876, 2003 Fulton County D. Rep. 1384, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balbosa-v-state-gactapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack