1. Did the trial court violate Appellant’s constitutional and statutory right to a jury trial by denying Appellant’s request to withdraw his jury waiver.As noted above, the CCA got the points of error transposed on their website. I've corrected it here, I'm sure they'll fix it, too.
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it failed to hold a hearing on the motion for new trial which alleged matters that were not determinable from the record?
Hobbs had originally filed a jury waiver and asked for a bench trial. However, on the day of trial, his attorney filed a motion for continuance and requested to withdraw his waiver because he had just been surprised with notes from the prosecutor about some recorded conversations the prosecutor intended to use at trial. The conversations dealt with Hobbs's attempts to make witnesses not show up at a bond hearing or not cooperate with the DA's office. [In other words, not exculpatory.] The trial court denied the continuance and allowed the State call the witness that day, but the court also agreed to reset the case for two weeks to allow the defense time to review the notes and recordings. The trial court did not allow Hobbs to withdraw the waiver because he knew about the recordings when he signed the jury waiver, he just didn't tell trial counsel. After he was convicted, Hobbs filed a motion for new trial alleging that his waiver wasn't knowing or voluntary and he should've been allowed to withdraw it. In his affidavit, Hobbs said he was illiterate and did not understand the waiver. When it was explained to him he immediately asked that the waiver be rescinded. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
The court of appeals held that there was an indication that the State might be prejudiced by allowing Hobbs to withdraw his waiver. There was some indication that Hobbs had tried to tamper with the witness that the State called that day. Delaying for a jury trial might have provided an opportunity for the defendant to influence the witness. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing the defendant to withdraw his waiver. The court of appeals also held that the trial court did not err in denying Hobbs a hearing on his motion for new trial. Had his claim just been that he was illiterate, he might have deserved a hearing, according to the court of appeals. However, in the motion Hobbs indicated that he signed the waiver in February, but he insisted that the waiver be withdrawn at some other meeting between the signing and the trial. The waiver was filed on April 26. At no time did Hobbs indicate on the day of trial that he was expecting a jury trial or that he had asked that the waiver been withdrawn. The court of appeals tethers this holding to Klapesky v. State, 256 S.W.3d 442 (Tex. App.--Austin 2008, pet. ref'd.) on the theory that Hobbs' affidavit did not refute the evidence in the record.
[I don't really have a problem with the waiver holding, but the motion for new trial part makes me a little nervous. Sure, the court of appeals is reasonable in thinking that the defendant was lying in his affidavit, but taking Hobbs' claims at face value I can see how a hearing should've been done. That's what makes me nervous for the State about the granting without oral argument. The CCA may want a more developed record to really show this dude was lying, and that means hearing on a motion for new trial.]
Here's a link to the CCA case info. Here's a a link to the court of appeals case info. And here's the missing link because that's how I roll.
