Pete v. State

666 So. 2d 1015, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 380, 1996 WL 21672

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence following a non-jury trial. The record reflects that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry in open court prior to accepting appellant’s waiver of jury trial.¹ Compare Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). As a result, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial was knowing and intelligent. See Tucker v. State, 559 So.2d 218 (Fla.1990) (an appropriate oral colloquy should focus defendant’s attention on the value of a jury trial and should make a defendant aware of the likely consequences of the waiver).

REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.

JOANOS, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

1 . No written waiver of jury trial appears in the record.