The Court of Appeal found that the record did not affirmatively show that appellant’s jury trial waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. While the Court noted that the record showed appellant may have had some discussion with trial counsel prior to the jury waiver, and that trial counsel indicated to the trial court that appellant wanted to waive his right to a jury trial, the record did not show whether the attorney ever discussed the nature of a jury trial with his client. Nevertheless, the trial court took “no steps” to ensure appellant comprehended what a jury trial entailed, which was especially concerning considering appellant’s mental competency had been questioned at one point.
^