Opinion
No. 37950
Decided May 29, 1963.
Habeas corpus — Waiver of jury — Failure to obtain written consent — Jurisdiction of court — Plea of guilty — Necessity of trial and presentation of evidence obviated.
APPEAL from the Court of appeals for Franklin County.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals in a habeas corpus proceeding, remanding appellant, Norman B. McAuley, to custody.
Appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury of Summit County on April 9, 1962, one indictment charging him with two counts of armed robbery and another charging him with breaking and entering an inhabited dwelling house in the night season. At his arraignment on July 19, 1962, with counsel present, a plea of not guilty was entered for him by the court.
On August 6, 1962, appellant appeared in open court accompanied by his counsel, withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the two counts of armed robbery. The prosecution's motion for nolle prosequi was sustained by the court as to the count of breaking and entering. Appellant was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary, the sentences to run concurrently.
Mr. Norman B. McAuley, in propria persona. Mr. William B. Saxbe, attorney general, and Mr. John Cianflona, for appellee.
The primary issue raised by appellant relates to the failure of the trial court to obtain a written waiver of jury in conformity with Section 2945.05, Revised Code, prior to accepting his guilty plea. It is appellant's contention that the provisions of this section are mandatory, and that the failure to obtain such waiver deprived the court of its jurisdiction so that he is entitled to be released by habeas corpus. It is well established that the entry of a plea of guilty by an accused constitutes a waiver of a jury trial. 50 Corpus Juris Secundum, 820, Juries, Section 108. 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.
Petitioner urges further that even on a plea of guilty the court had the duty to examine the evidence to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to accept such plea. Apparently appellant believes there should be a full trial on a plea of guilty. No such duty is imposed on the trial court.
A plea of guilty obviates the necessity of a trial and the presentation of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. No duty was imposed on the trial court to require or to examine evidence to determine whether the evidence justified appellant's plea of guilty.
There being no error in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TAFT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, GRIFFITH, HERBERT and GIBSON, JJ., concur.