Summary
holding that the mandates of R.C. 2945.05, "requiring the filing of a written waiver of a trial by jury, are not applicable where a plea of guilty is entered by an accused. The failure in such an instance to file a waiver does not deprive an accused of any of his constitutional rights nor does it deprive the court of its jurisdiction"
Summary of this case from State v. AbneyOpinion
No. 38114
Decided July 3, 1963.
Criminal law — Written waiver of trial by jury — Statutory requirement not applicable, when — Plea of guilty entered by accused — Habeas corpus not available.
IN HABEAS CORPUS.
This is an action in habeas corpus originating in this court. In July 1962, the Grand Jury of Summit County returned an indictment charging petitioner, Ronald L. Martin, on two counts of armed robbery. A plea of not guilty was entered on July 19, 1962, and counsel was appointed to represent petitioner. On August 6, 1962, petitioner appeared in open court accompanied by his attorney, withdrew his plea of not guilty to both counts in the indictment and entered a plea of guilty to both counts of armed robbery. Thereupon he was sentenced on both counts, the sentences to run concurrently.
Mr. Ronald L. Martin, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. William C. Baird, for respondent.
The single contention made by petitioner is that he did not sign a written waiver of jury as required by Section 2945.05, Revised Code, and therefore his conviction was void.
Inasmuch as petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the indictment, his contention is without foundation.
The provisions of Section 2945.05, Revised Code, requiring the filing of a written waiver of a trial by jury are not applicable where a plea of guilty is entered by an accused. The failure in such an instance to file a waiver does not deprive an accused of any of his constitutional rights nor does it deprive the court of its jurisdiction. Rodriguez v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St. 456; Vertz v. Sacks, Warden, 173 Ohio St. 459; and Norton v. Green, Supt., 173 Ohio St. 531.
The petitioner in the instant case has shown no denial of his constitutional rights nor any lack of jurisdiction of the trial court over either his person or the subject matter of the crime.
Petitioner remanded to custody.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.