Before trial, O'Donnell waived his right to a jury trial in the following colloquy:
APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIRST DIVISION
548 N.E.2d 755, 192 Ill. App. 3d 321, 139 Ill. Dec. 370 1989.IL.1971
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Stephen Schiller, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the court. MANNING, P.J., and BUCKLEY, J., concur.
DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE O'CONNOR
Defendant Daniel O'Donnell was convicted of residential burglary (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 19-3(a)), after a bench trial. O'Donnell appeals, arguing that his waiver of a jury trial was not made knowingly or understandingly. For the reasons below, we affirm.
On May 11, 1987, Chicago police officers Raymond Bell and Thomas Puzinski answered a burglar alarm at the home of Ms. Susan Mauro. At Ms. Mauro's residence, Officer Bell walked to the back of the house and noticed the back door ajar with signs of forced entry. Returning to the front of the house, Officer Bell saw someone leaving the house through the bathroom window, carrying a pink-colored sack.
Officer Bell chased the suspect down a gangway toward an alley, where the suspect dropped the sack. The officers radioed for assistance, and the suspect was caught. Throughout the entire chase, Officer Bell had not lost sight of the suspect.
The suspect was identified as the defendant, Daniel O'Donnell, also known as Harold Sonnenberg, William T. Boley, and John Fleming. The police recovered the pink sack, which was a pillow case containing a clock, several screwdrivers, jewelry, a cosmetic kit, and a pair of gloves. O'Donnell was charged with residential burglary.
"DEFENSE COUNSEL: Mr. O'Donnell is present in open court, your honor. At this time, he's executing a jury waiver.
THE COURT: Mr. O'Donnell, do you understand that under the Constitution, you are entitled to a trial by jury?, DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, a jury trial would involve selecting 12 people from our community. We have about 50 or 60 people in here and we'd talk to them find out things about them, and your lawyer would participate and the State's Attorney would participate. Eventually, we would select 12 people to sit as a jury.
Those 12 people would hear the evidence and the arguments of the lawyers. And I would give them very specific instructions as to what ...