State v. Burnett, 47849

• Citation: 218 Kan. 696,542 P.2d 707
• Decision Date: 24 January 1976
• Docket Number: No. 47849,47849
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Alfred R. BURNETT, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Page 707

542 P.2d 707

218 Kan. 696

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Alfred R. BURNETT, Appellant.

No. 47849.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Jan. 24, 1976.

John E. Pyles, Wichita, was on the brief for appellant.

Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., Keith Sanborn, Dist. Atty., and Clifford Bertholf, Asst. Dist. Atty., were on the brief for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal stems from a conviction of aggravated robbery.

In the early morning of June 18, 1973, a Wichita Pizza Inn was robbed at gun point by a lone gunman, identified as the defendant by the three employees who were accosted and herded into a walk-in cooler as the robber escaped with some $305 to $310 taken from the safe. The police broadcast a description of the bandit and a short time later Mr. Burnett, who fit the description, was apprehended driving a Volkswagen in the vicinity. Matching clothing and shoes, plus the gun used in the robbery, were found on the defendant's person and about the car. Some $307 was also found, including $100 stuffed in Burnett's sock.

The defendant appeared for arraignment before Judge Howard Kline on August 20, 1973, being accompanied by his counsel. At this time he waived jury trial. His case was placed on the non-jury docket for trial to the court on November 20, 1973.

On the assigned date the case came on for trial before Judge James J. Noone, at which time defendant through his counsel requested jury trial. He also asked that he be given a lie detector test, the results of which he agreed could be admitted in evidence. Both requests were denied.

Defendant's first point goes to insufficiency of the evidence. This point is obviously without merit. Evidence of guilt is not only sufficient to support a guilty finding, it appears overwhelming.

Secondly, Burnett argues the trial court abused its discretion in refusing a jury trial. The record is clear that Burnett voluntarily and understandingly waived trial by jury. In State v. Blanton, 203 Kan. 81, 453 P.2d 30, this court held that a voluntary waiver by an accused who knew and understood what he was doing cannot be withdrawn except in the court's discretion, in the exercise of which the court may consider the timeliness of the request and whether a delay of trial would result in inconvenience to witnesses. (See, also, State v. Pruett, 213 Kan. 41, 515 P.2d 1051.)

We are well aware of the central assignment system under which the 18th Judicial District of this state manages its large docket under rules approved by this court, and we can appreciate the delay which doubtless would ensue under that system from rescheduling cases from non-jury to jury...