People v. Boyer CA3

Filed 10/28/21 P. v. Boyer CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090654

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 15F05020)

v.

SCOTT DALLAS BOYER,

Defendant and Appellant.

In a court trial, defendant Scott Dallas Boyer was found guilty of second degree murder and a deadly weapon enhancement was found true. On appeal, he argues: (1) he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial; and (2) defense counsel did not consent to the jury waiver, rendering it invalid. We affirm.

1

I. BACKGROUND1 An amended information alleged defendant committed murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon in the commission of the offense (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). Defendant pled not guilty. On the morning scheduled to start jury selection, defense counsel informed the court that defendant was contemplating a court trial, rather than a jury trial. The trial court informed defendant “you have the right to a speedy and public jury trial. A jury trial is 12 people from the community, a diverse cross section of the community, and you would have the right to, at both the bench and jury trial, you have the right to cross- examine witnesses and present evidence, and you have the right to remain silent. So you have all of those same rights at both types of trials. At a jury trial, the People, represented by [Assistant District Attorney (ADA)], would have to prove your guilt beyond any reasonable doubt and convince all 12 jurors. So if one juror—if 11 jurors felt that you were guilty, let’s say, of first-degree murder, but one juror did not, then you would not have that. There wouldn’t be a unanimous finding as to first-degree murder. [¶] Whereas with a bench trial, it’s just me. So now [ADA] instead of having to convince 12 individuals, just has to convince one individual, me. So I just want to make sure you understand the dynamics of the difference between a jury trial and a bench trial, you have had a chance to think about it, and that you’re really certain that you want a bench trial because it’s an important decision. This is as serious a case as they come.” Defendant affirmed he wanted to have a court trial. And the following exchange ensued: “THE COURT: Okay. Do you want some additional time to talk to your lawyer, or do you feel like you have already discussed it with her?