Khan v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Khan v. State

881 S.W.2d 60, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1541, 1994 WL 286681

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 30, 1994

Docket01-93-00886-CR

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 881 S.W.2d 60 (Khan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Khan v. State, 881 S.W.2d 60, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1541, 1994 WL 286681 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

DUGGAN, Justice.

Appellant was charged by information with assault. He pled not guilty; the trial judge found him guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in jail, probated for two years. Appellant gave timely, written notice of appeal.

In two points of error, appellant contends that the court eired in proceeding to a nonju-ry trial without securing a written waiver of trial by jury from appellant as required by article 1.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Vernon Supp.1994). The State agrees with appellant, and requests that appellant’s points of error be sustained.

Although appellant and the State both orally waived the right to a trial by jury, the record contains no written jury waiver. The judgment recites that appellant waived a jury, but not that he waived a jury in writing and with the consent of the State. Pursuant to this Court’s order, on March 10, 1994, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether a written waiver was executed. After hearing testimony from the clerk of the trial court, the trial judge found that no written waiver was filed.

Effective September 1, 1991, art. 1.13 requires a written jury waiver, approved by the State, in all eases, both misdemeanor and felony. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 *61 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Chaouachi v. State, 870 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet.). A judgment recital that the defendant waived the right to a jury is insufficient; the record must reflect that the defendant waived the right in writing. Chaouachi, 870 S.W.2d at 94. Moreover, a violation of the requirement of a written jury waiver is not subject to a harm analysis. Id.

We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

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

OPINION

DUGGAN, Justice.

Appellant was charged by information with assault. He pled not guilty; the trial judge found him guilty and assessed his punishment at one year in jail, probated for two years. Appellant gave timely, written notice of appeal.

In two points of error, appellant contends that the court eired in proceeding to a nonju-ry trial without securing a written waiver of trial by jury from appellant as required by article 1.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Vernon Supp.1994). The State agrees with appellant, and requests that appellant’s points of error be sustained.

Although appellant and the State both orally waived the right to a trial by jury, the record contains no written jury waiver. The judgment recites that appellant waived a jury, but not that he waived a jury in writing and with the consent of the State. Pursuant to this Court’s order, on March 10, 1994, the trial court conducted a hearing to determine whether a written waiver was executed. After hearing testimony from the clerk of the trial court, the trial judge found that no written waiver was filed.

Effective September 1, 1991, art. 1.13 requires a written jury waiver, approved by the State, in all eases, both misdemeanor and felony. State ex rel. Curry v. Carr, 847 *61 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1992); Chaouachi v. State, 870 S.W.2d 88, 94 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1993, no pet.). A judgment recital that the defendant waived the right to a jury is insufficient; the record must reflect that the defendant waived the right in writing. Chaouachi, 870 S.W.2d at 94. Moreover, a violation of the requirement of a written jury waiver is not subject to a harm analysis. Id.

We reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 S.W.2d 60, 1994 Tex. App. LEXIS 1541, 1994 WL 286681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/khan-v-state-texapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack