Altice, J.
Following a bench trial, Evaristo Martinez was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). …
…
… At the initial hearing, Martinez (who speaks limited English) received a written advisement of rights form in Spanish. The form advised Martinez that he had a right to a jury trial, and that because he was charged with misdemeanors, he would be required to file a petition requesting a jury trial at least ten days before the trial date if he wished to exercise that right. The form further advised that if no timely jury request was filed, Martinez would waive his right to be tried by a jury. Martinez signed the form, indicating that he had read and understood his rights.
…
Martinez did not file a request for a jury trial, and this case proceeded to a three-day bench trial, at the conclusion of which he was found guilty of the OWI offenses. …
On appeal, Martinez argues that he did not validly waive his right to a jury trial. We note, however, that Martinez has not provided us with transcripts of any of the pretrial hearings in this case, which would be integral to our review of his arguments. … Accordingly, he has waived his claims of error on appeal. See Davis v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) …
Waiver notwithstanding, we will address Martinez’s arguments to the extent the limited record permits. …
“The right to a jury trial in misdemeanor cases is not self-executing, but is controlled by Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 22.” Fiandt v. State, 996 N.E.2d 421, 423 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013. …
Martinez acknowledges that he was charged with misdemeanors and did not request a jury trial as Crim. R. 22 requires. He argues instead that requiring him to make such a request in order to preserve his right to a jury trial is unconstitutional. …
Our Supreme Court recently discussed the jury trial right in Horton v. State:
The jury trial right is a bedrock of our criminal justice system, guaranteed by both Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. …
But the Indiana jury trial right provides greater protection because, in a felony prosecution, waiver is valid only if communicated personally by the defendant, [Kellems v. State, 849 N.E.2d 1110,1114 (Ind. 2006)]—an issue which, under the Sixth Amendment, has split federal circuit courts of appeals. …
In support of his argument that there is nevertheless a personal waiver requirement emanating from the Sixth Amendment and applicable where a defendant is charged only with misdemeanors, Martinez directs our attention to Jean-Baptiste v. State, 71 N.E.3d 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) … In that case, another panel of this court reversed a misdemeanor conviction, based in part on its sua sponte conclusion that the defendant, who had not complied with Crim. R. 22 but requested a jury trial on the day of his scheduled bench trial, was nevertheless entitled to a trial by jury. The court held that it was fundamental error to deny the jury trial request because “[a]bsent his personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the record, the court was required under the Sixth Amendment to presume that a defendant charged with a Class A misdemeanor desired a jury trial, not a bench trial.” Jean-Baptiste, 71 N.E.3d at 412.
As an initial matter, we note that by failing to provide us with transcripts of the pretrial proceedings, Martinez has not provided us with a record sufficient to support a finding that he did not personally waive his right to a jury trial verbally and in open court. …
In any event, even if we assume that Martinez did not personally waive his right to a jury trial, we conclude that no such waiver was constitutionally required. Because we believe it represents a departure from a long line of case law, we decline to follow Jean-Baptiste. …
None of the cases cited in Jean-Baptiste held that the Sixth Amendment requires a personal waiver of the jury trial right in a misdemeanor case—or even in a felony case, for that matter. In Horton, our Supreme Court recognized a personal waiver requirement in felony cases emanating from state statute, but the relevant statute plainly does not require a personal waiver where a defendant is charged with misdemeanors only. …
….
Judgment affirmed.
Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.