Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 10, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Oliver

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 803
• Docket Number: L-24-1247

• Judges: Mayle

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Mayle, J., trial court lacked jurisdiction to try appellant's case without a jury because appellant properly demanded a jury trial for her petty offense but there is no evidence in the record that she waived her right to a jury trial in a signed writing that was filed, made part of the record, and made in open court, as required by R.C. 2945.05.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Oliver, 2026-Ohio-803.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-24-1247

Appellee
Trial Court No. CRB02400511
v.

Nancy Oliver DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 10, 2026

---

Heather Pentycofe, Sylvania Prosecutor, and
Samuel Z. Kaplan, Sylvania Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Henry Schaefer, for appellant.

---

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Nancy Oliver, appeals the March 4, 2025 judgment of the

Sylvania Municipal Court sentencing her following a bench trial. Because the City

concedes error under 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 16.2(E), and we agree that the trial court erred,

we reverse and remand for a new trial.

{¶ 2} Oliver was charged in two separate cases with one count each of violating a

protection order in violation of R.C. 2919.27(A)(1). She was found not guilty in one
case, so that case is not before us on appeal. In the other case, case No. CRB2400511,

Oliver filed a written demand for a jury trial on June 24, 2024. The docket shows that a

jury trial was scheduled for July 23, 2024. When Oliver’s case eventually went to trial on

September 6, 2024, it was tried to the court. Although Oliver demanded a jury, the

record does not contain a signed, written waiver of her right to a jury trial.

{¶ 3} Following the trial, the trial court found Oliver guilty and sentenced her to

180 days in jail, with 115 days suspended, two years of probation, a fine and court costs,

and a no-contact order with the victim.

{¶ 4} Oliver now appeals, raising one assignment of error:

I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PROCEEDING TO A BENCH

TRIAL WITHOUT A WRITTEN WAIVER OF MS. OLIVER’S RIGHT

TO A JURY TRIAL AFTER A TIMELY JURY DEMAND HAD BEEN

FILED.

{¶ 5} After Oliver filed her brief, the City filed a notice of conceded error. It

contends that we should find Oliver’s assignment of error well-taken and remand the case

for retrial.

{¶ 6} Article I, § 10 of the Ohio Constitution and R.C. 2945.17 afford criminal

defendants the right to a trial by jury except in the case of a minor misdemeanor or a

violation for which there is no potential for a prison or jail term and the possible fine does

not exceed $1,000. For “petty offenses,” such as the offense at issue here, see Crim.R.

2(C) and (D), Crim.R. 23(A) provides that trial shall be by the court unless the defendant

2.
files a written demand for a jury trial ten days before trial or three days after receiving

notice of the trial date, whichever is later. A defendant’s failure to comply with Crim.R.

23(A) constitutes a waiver of a jury trial. State v. Palacios, 2017-Ohio-8674, ¶ 11 (6th

Dist.).

{¶ 7} Once a defendant in a petty offense case files a jury demand as outlined in

Crim.R. 23(A), “it must appear of record that such defendant waived this right in writing

in the manner provided by R.C. 2945.05, in order for the trial court to have jurisdiction to

try the defendant without a jury.” State v. Tate, 59 Ohio St.2d 50 (1979), syllabus. R.C.

2945.05 provides that

[i]n all criminal cases pending in courts of record in this state, the
defendant may waive a trial by jury and be tried by the court without a jury.
Such waiver by a defendant, shall be in writing, signed by the defendant,
and filed in said cause and made a part of the record thereof. It shall be
entitled in the court and cause, and in substance as follows: “I __________,
defendant in the above cause, hereby voluntarily waive and relinquish my
right to a trial by jury, and elect to be tried by a Judge of the Court in which
the said cause may be pending. I fully understand that under the laws of
this state, I have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.”

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. Such waiver may be withdrawn by the defendant at any time
before the commencement of the trial.

Thus, for a defendant’s jury waiver to be valid, “[i]t must be (1) in writing, (2) signed by

the defendant, (3) filed, (4) made part of the record, and (5) made in open court.” State v.

Lomax, 2007-Ohio-4277, ¶ 9. “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 (1996), paragraph one of the syllabus.

3.
{¶ 8} Here, there is no evidence in the record that Oliver waived her right to a

jury trial after properly demanding one. That is, there is no written waiver that was

signed by Oliver, made in open court, filed, and made part of the record. Because that is

the case, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try Oliver without a jury. Pless at paragraph

one of the syllabus. Therefore, we find that Oliver’s assignment of error is well-taken.

{¶ 9} Because the trial court failed to obtain a valid, written jury waiver from

Oliver before trying her case to the bench, the March 4, 2025 judgment of the Sylvania

Municipal Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial. The City is

ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24.

Judgment reversed, and remanded.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Christine E. Mayle, J
JUDGE

Myron C. Duhart, J
JUDGE

Charles E. Sulek, J
CONCUR. JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

4.