State v. Foster
This text of 2022 Ohio 1293 (State v. Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Foster, 2022-Ohio-1293.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-210447 TRIAL NO. B-2006664 Plaintiff-Appellee, :
: O P I N I O N. VS. :
VATON FOSTER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2022
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond L. Katz, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
CROUSE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Vaton Foster appeals his felony conviction for
domestic violence. For the following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial
court, and remand the cause for a new trial.
Facts and Procedure
{¶2} Foster was indicted for one count of domestic violence under R.C.
2919.25(A), a felony of the fourth degree. Foster proceeded to a bench trial and was
found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to three years of community control with
the condition of a maximum of six months residential treatment at River City
Correctional Center. He timely appealed.
{¶3} In one assignment of error, Foster contends that his conviction was
against the manifest weight of the evidence. However, the state submits that the cause
must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because a written jury waiver was not
filed and made part of the record.
Courts must strictly comply with R.C. 2945.05
{¶4} Although the jury-waiver issue was not raised by appellant as an
assignment of error, this court can address it because failure to file a written jury
waiver, signed by the defendant, amounts to plain error per se. State v. Pflanz, 135
Ohio App.3d 338, 339, 733 N.E.2d 1212 (1st Dist.1999), citing Crim.R. 52(B), State v.
Morris, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-971119, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 4922 (Oct. 23, 1998),
and State v. Berry, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-970701, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 6409
(Dec. 31, 1998).
{¶5} R.C. 2945.05 provides that a defendant’s waiver of a trial by jury “shall
be in writing, signed by the defendant, and filed in said cause and made a part of the
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
record thereof. * * * Such waiver of trial by jury must be made in open court after the
defendant has been arraigned and has had opportunity to consult with counsel.” See
generally State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350, 2007-Ohio-4277, 872 N.E.2d 279
(holding a jury waiver must be in writing, signed by the defendant, filed, made part of
the record, and made in open court).
{¶6} “Absent strict compliance with the requirements of R.C. 2945.05, a trial
court lacks jurisdiction to try the defendant without a jury.” State v. Pless, 74 Ohio
St.3d 333, 339, 658 N.E.2d 766 (1996).
{¶7} We have reviewed the record certified to us and agree with the state that
there is no written jury waiver in the record. Because the trial court did not strictly
comply with R.C. 2945.05, we hold it did not have jurisdiction to try Foster’s case
without a jury.
Conclusion
{¶8} In light of the foregoing analysis, we reverse the judgment of the trial
court, and remand the cause for a new trial. Our decision renders moot Foster’s sole
assignment of error and we decline to address it. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
MYERS, P. J., and BERGERON, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2022 Ohio 1293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foster-ohioctapp-2022.